S
PRÄHISTORISCHE ARCHÄOLOGIE IN SÜDOSTEUROPA
BAND 28
THE NEOLITHIC AND ENEOLITHIC
IN SOUTHEAST EUROPE
NEW APPROACHES TO DATING AND CULTURAL
DYNAMICS IN THE 6TH TO 4TH MILLENNIUM BC
EDITED BY
WOLFRAM SCHIER
AND
FLORIN DRAŞOVEAN
RAHDEN / WESTF. 2014
THE NEOLITHIC AND ENEOLITHIC
IN SOUTHEAST EUROPE
PRÄHISTORISCHE ARCHÄOLOGIE IN SÜDOSTEUROPA
BAND 28
Herausgegeben
von
BERNHARD HÄNSEL
und
WOLFRAM SCHIER
Institut für Prähistorische Archäologie
der Freien Universität Berlin
VERLAG MARIE LEIDORF GMBH • RAHDEN/WESTF. 2014
PRÄHISTORISCHE ARCHÄOLOGIE IN SÜDOSTEUROPA
BAND 28
THE NEOLITHIC AND ENEOLITHIC
IN SOUTHEAST EUROPE
NEW APPROACHES TO DATING AND CULTURAL
DYNAMICS IN THE 6TH TO 4TH MILLENNIUM BC
Edited by
WOLFRAM SCHIER
and
FLORIN DRAŞOVEAN
Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH . Rahden/Westf.
2014
440 Seiten mit 313 Abbildungen
Published with financial support of the Timiş County Council
Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek
Schier, Wolfram / Draşovean, Florin (Hrsg.):
The Neolithic and Eneolithic in Southeast Europe ; New approaches
to dating and cultural Dynamics in the 6th to 4th Millennium BC /
hrsg. von Wolfram Schier… .
Rahden/Westf.: Leidorf 2014
(Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa ; Bd. 28)
ISBN 978-3-89646-599-3
Die Deutsche Bibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie.
Detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.ddb.de abrufbar.
Gedruckt auf alterungsbeständigem Papier
Alle Rechte vorbehalten
© 2014
Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH
Geschäftsführer: Dr. Bert Wiegel
Stellerloh 65 · D-32369 Rahden/Westf.
Tel: +49/(0)5771/ 9510-74
Fax: +49/(0)5771/ 9510-75
E-Mail: [email protected]
Internet: http://www.vml.de
ISBN 978-3-89646-599-3
ISSN 0723-1725
Kein Teil des Buches darf in irgendeiner Form (Druck, Fotokopie, CD-ROM, DVD, Internet oder einem
anderen Verfahren) ohne schriftliche Genehmigung des Verlages Marie Leidorf GmbH reproduziert werden
oder unter Verwendung elektronischer Systeme verarbeitet, vervielfältigt oder verbreitet werden.
PC-Texterfassung und Scans: Die Autoren
Redaktion: Wolfram Schier, Florin Draşovean
Satz, Layout und Bildnachbearbeitung: Morten Hegewisch
Druck und Produktion:
Preface
The present volume assembles contributions presented at two international conferences dedicated to recent studies on
the Neolithic and Eneolithic of Southeast and Eastern Central Europe.
Twenty years after the publication of the last comprehensive and broad scale conference on the historical concept,
materiality and chronology of the Copper Age the International Conference “The Transition from the Neolithic to the
Eneolithic in Central and South-Eastern Europe in the Light of Recent Research” took place in Timişoara, Romania
on 10–12 November 2011. Organised by the editors of this volume, 23 colleagues from seven countries gathered at
the atmospheric venue of the baroque fortification “Bastionul” for a two days intensive program of lectures, focussing
on regional overviews over the transition from the Neolithic to the Eneolithic. The meeting brought together new data
and new perspectives on the final periods of the Neolithic as well as the transition process to the Eneolithic.
In 2013, while most of the Timişoara conference contributions had been submitted and editorial work had already
begun, the editors of the present volume organised the session A32 at the 19th meeting of the European Association of
Archaeologists (EAA) at Plzeň, Czech Republic on “Relative vs absolute chronology of the Neolithic of the Carpathian Basin and South Eastern Europe”. Twelve lectures and one poster presentation were given by scholars of nine
European countries, some of which had also taken part at the Timişoara conference. The thematic scope of the EAA
session was focussed rather on approaches to adjust and revise traditional relative chronologies using new radiocarbon dates and calibration models (Bayesian statistics).
Only a part of the EAA session contributions, however, was submitted until spring 2014 – too few to be published
in a separate volume. The editors therefore decided to integrate the Plzeň papers into the volume originally planned
as the Timişoara proceedings. The present volume, thus, has developed a broader scope – both in terms of chronology (from Early Neolithic to Late Eneolithic) and geography (from Greece to Slovenia and Ukraine). The editors are
convinced that it represents quite an impressive cross section of ongoing research on the Neolithic and Eneolithic in
Southeast and Eastern Central Europe.
Finally we would like to thank all the contributors for their patient cooperation, the Muzeul Banatului Timişoara,
County Timiş and the Freie Universität Berlin for the financial support in organising the Timişoara conference and
publishing this volume, the Czech organisers of the EAA meeting at Plzeň for a smooth organisation and pleasant
atmosphere, Dr. Morten Hegewisch and Jan Müller-Edzards (FU Berlin) for the substantial editorial work.
We hope that this volume will both stimulate discussions on our present knowledge and be an incentive for further
research. Only an improved chronological resolution will help us to better understand the dynamics of cultural processes in prehistory.
Berlin and Timişoara, November 2014 J. Lichardus (ed.), Die Kupferzeit als historische Epoche (Bonn 1991).
Wolfram Schier and Florin Draşovean
Participants of the conference “The Transition from the Neolithic to the Eneolithic in Central and South-Eastern Europe in the
Light of Recent Research” (Timişoara, Romania on 10.–12. November 2011 in front of the baroque fortification “Bastionul”. From
left: Dragoş Diaconescu, Ferenc Horváth, Katalin Vályi, Vladimir Slavčev, Yavor Boyadzhiev, Raiko Krauß, Florin Draşovean,
Johannes Müller, Wolfram Schier, Yuri Rassamakin, Borislav Jovanovic, Mirjana Blagojević, Gheorghe Lazarovici, Pál Raczky,
Marcel Burić, Nenad Tasić, Kristina Penezić, Saša Lukić, Alexander Möser, Alexandra Anders, Eszter Bánffy, Attila Gyucha,
Georgeta El Susi.
Content
Preface .............................................................................................................................................................................
6
Darko Stojanovski, Trajče Nacev; Marta Arzarello, Pottery typology and the monochrome Neolithic phase in the
Republic of Macedonia ...................................................................................................................................................
9
Stratis Papadopoulos, Nerantzis Nerantzis, Eastern Macedonia during the 5th millennium BC: Stability and
Innovation ........................................................................................................................................................................
29
Yavor Boyadzhiev, The transition between Neolithic and Chalcolithic on the territory of Bulgaria ..............................
49
Cornelia-Magda Lazarovici, The Late Neolithic and Copper Age in Eastern Romania .................................................
69
Knut Rassmann, Michael Videjko, Daniel Peters, Roland Gauss, Großflächige geomagnetische Untersuchungen
einer kupferzeitlichen Siedlung der Trypillia-Kultur. Aktuelle Prospektionen in Taljanky und Maydanetske
(Ukraine) im Vergleich mit früheren Forschungen .........................................................................................................
99
Gheorghe Lazarovici, Cornelia-Magda Lazarovici, Corelations and new observations regarding absolute and
relative chronology based on Banat and Transylvania researches ..................................................................................
113
Florin Draşovean, On the Late Neolithic and Early Eneolithic Relative and Absolute Chronology of the Eastern
Carpathian Basin. A Bayesian approach ..........................................................................................................................
129
Adam N. Crnobrnja, The (E)neolithic Settlement Crkvine at Stubline, Serbia ..............................................................
173
Mirjana Blagojević, The Transition from Late Neolithic to Eneolithic in Western Serbia in the Light of Recent
Research – archaeological rescue excavations in the Kolubara mining basin ................................................................
187
Saša Lukić, Early copper metallurgy in the Central Balkans: from technological determinism towards sociotechnical interpretation ....................................................................................................................................................
213
Dragoş Diaconescu, New remarks about the typology and the chronology of the Pločnik and čoka copper hammeraxes ..................................................................................................................................................................................
221
Gheorghe Lazarovici, Beginning of the Copper age in Transylvania and some data regarding the copper and gold
metallurgy ........................................................................................................................................................................
243
Attila Gyucha, William A. Parkinson, Richard W. Yerkes, The Transition from the Late Neolithic to the Early
Copper Age: Multidisciplinary Investigations in the Körös Region of the Great Hungarian Plain ................................
273
Ferenc Horváth, Questions relating to the Proto-Tiszapolgár Period in South-Eastern Hungary. Main issues and
present state of research ..................................................................................................................................................
297
Pál Raczky, Alexandra Anders, Zsuzsanna Siklósi, Trajectories of Continuity and Change between the Late
Neolithic and the Copper Age in Eastern Hungary .........................................................................................................
319
Eszter Bánffy, Istvan Zalai-Gaál, Tibor Marton, Krisztián Oross, Anett Osztás, Jörg Petrasch, Das Sárköz im
südungarischen Donaugebiet – ein Korridor zwischen dem Balkan und Mitteleuropa im 6.–5. Jt. v. Chr. ....................
347
Marko Sraka, Bayesian modeling the 14C calendar chronologies of the Neolithic-Eneolithic transition. Case studies
from Slovenia and Croatia ...............................................................................................................................................
369
Lea Čataj, Middle Eneolithic Lasinja and Retz-Gajary cultures in northern Croatia – development of chronology .....
397
Borislav Jovanović, Mirjana Blagojević, Bratislava type lids as indicators of early copper metallurgy in the early
Chalcolithic of central and southeast Europe ..................................................................................................................
409
Nicolae Ursulescu, Neolithic – Eneolithic/Chalcolithic – Copper Age: a simple terminological problem? ..................
413
Wolfram Schier, The Copper Age in Southeast Europe – historical epoch or typo-chronological construct? ................
419
List of authors ..................................................................................................................................................................
437
Questions relating to the Proto-Tiszapolgár Period in South-Eastern Hungary.
Main issues and present state of research
Ferenc Horváth
Abstract
This paper discusses the main questions on the transition from the Late Neolithic to the Early Copper Age in the
southern part of the Great Hungarian Plain (Alföld), on the basis of mainly unpublished assemblages from excavations at Hódmezővásárhely-Gorzsa, Deszk-Vénó and Szegvár-Tűzköves. As a result of typological and other, further
considerations, author queries the grounds of Proto-Tiszapolgár phenomenon as an ethnoarchaeological unit (culture,
group), which can only be properly used as nominating the period of transition from LN to ECA. Analysing the radiometric data of the sites in question survival of the latest Neolithic Gorzsa (Tisza) settlements contemporaneously with
the PTP period in the Upper Tisza Region has been supposed. The assemblages of find from Deszk-Vénó, however,
– despite the transitional character of its pottery – proved to be the heritage of an ECA settlement. It is supported by
an “imported” Petreşti B fragment of ceramic from Transylvania too.
Introduction
When analysing the features and artefacts of the Late Neolithic (LN) and Early Copper (ECA) Ages in the Carpathian Basin, in her comprehensive work I. Bognár-Kutzián – who devoted nearly full of her activity to the research of
the Copper Age questions – has specified four territorial groups of the ECA Tiszapolgár culture:
The Lucska group on the north, distributed mainly in the plany area of Eastern Slovakia and in the territory of the
former Csőszhalom group; the Basatanya group in the Middle Alföld (GHP) following the Herpály culture; the Kisrétpart group in the Körös river’s valley mainly but not exclusively in a part of one time distribution of the Tisza and
that of the Herpály culture; and finally the Deszk group in the Southern Alföld, succeeding the Gorzsa variant of the
Tisza culture. As for the internal relative chronology, she divided the Tiszapolgár period into two main parts, an “A”,
and a “B” phases. Phase “A” has further been divided into “A1” and “A2” subphases. In her work has marked out
possible directions of the future research as well (Bognár-Kutzián 1972, 189–194; 219; 212–222).
Among others she raised the probability of a supposed transitional period between the LN and ECA, when archaeological units known at that time in area of the Great Hungarian Plain had already lost main characteristics of their
antecedents already, as painted and incised ornamentation of the ceramics. Elaboration and definition of this period,
however, have been left by her to the future research. She completed and sent the manuscript to the press in 1966
(Bognár-Kutzián 1972, 213; 220).
A short history of the research (Fig. 1)
Two years later S. Šiška presented the first summary of finds and main criteria of the Proto-Tiszapolgár (PTP) horizon from East Slovakia, proving the superposition of the Tiszapolgár layers on PTP features (Šiška 1968, 71–80). Till
in 1969 B. Brukner published PTP finds from the Srem (Szerémség) and South-East Bačka (Bácska) and introduced
them as “Gospodjinci type” (Gomolava, Gospođinci/Boldogasszonyfalva – Parohija, Sirig/Szőreg – Kamendin) as
predecessor of the southern Drava-Sava-Danube region Tiszapolgár group (Brukner 1969, 61–71; 1974, 440–441).
By the time the volume – The Early Copper Age Tiszapolgár Culture in the Carpathian Basin – came out in 1972, the
premise of a transitional period being in question came already true.
Between 1977 and 1982 during the course of the excavation exposed by N. Kalicz and P. Raczky on a large surface
at Szegvár-Tűzköves, level 5 revealed assemblages of the Proto-Tiszapolgár period. In the preliminary publication
in 1984 they published artefacts of the level 5, remarking that this level was continuous “in the nature of tell forming
subsistence techniques”. On the basis of this features they questioned the meaning of the Tiszapolgár A period as it
was interpreted by I. Bognár-Kutzián and regarded that as the PTP phase of the Herpály culture together with those
uppermost levels of stratified sites where ECA material have been collected above the Herpály culture levels. They
See further literature on the history of research: Link 2006, 181–198; Szilágyi 2008, 418–424; Diaconescu 2009, 271–283.
298
Ferenc Horváth
Fig. 1. Sites of the transitional period between Late Neolithic and Early Copper Age.
ascertained start of the Tiszapolgár culture with phase B as defined by I. Bognár-Kutzián (Kalicz/Raczky 1984, 133;
1987, 125). A part of a PTP settlement at Hrcel/Gercsely has been published from Eastern Slovakia (Kamieńská 1987,
481–506). From northern and western Rumania assemblages of formative phase of the Tiszapolgár culture have been
published (Maxim 1999, 124).
In the Rumanian Banat W. Schier and F. Draşovean excavated probably PTP period layer on the Uivar /Úivár-Gomila
LN tell (Schier/Draşovean 2004, 183). From Čičarovce/Csicser-Vel’ká Mol’va site in Eastern Slovakia further assemblages have been reported and ranged to the PTP phase (Kaminská 2007, 208–215). Latestly, new results arose from the
investigation of the tell-like settlement at Polgár-Bosnyákdomb, namely the material of a house belonging to our period
(Raczky/Anders 2009, 11–14). In one of his study N. Kalicz has ranged the assemblages of finds from Bodrogzsadány
(Sárazsadány) and Kenézlő – formerly had been qualified as Bodrogzsadány type within Csőszhalom painted horizon by
I. Bognár-Kutzián – to the PTP complex (Kalicz 1994, 270; Bognár-Kutzián 1966, 268–269 Abb. 5).
Settlements of the PTP period in the southern part of Great Hungarian Plain
I shell survey as follows the problems that have been arisen during the last decades which are referring to the period
in question by investigation of three sites in this area. My approach is mainly typological, because I intend to define
those traits of the find assemblages – if there are – which exclusively characterize the period of transition.
Hódmezővásárhely-Gorzsa (1978–1996)
In 1982 first results of a new research program – continuously running between 1978 and 1996 – appeared on
the investigations of Hódmezővásárhely-Gorzsa, a settlement of the Tisza culture. The uppermost levels of the site
contained ceramics having somewhat different traits from that of the underneath levels. Since this kind of artefacts
appeared in the uppermost levels within most of the blocks, I separated them as “Phase A” at the layer sequence of
the site, and interpreted at first as a transitional period towards ECA (Horváth 1982, 211; 1983a, 62), afterwards as
belonging to the PTP phenomenon (Horváth 1986, 93–94; 1987, 46; 2005, 63).
During the course of the 18 years long excavation stratigraphic evidences and our knowledge on the material culture of the site became
more and more detailed. It also came to light that phase B could still not be regarded as belonging to the Proto-Tiszapolgár period as
it was published earlier (Horváth 1987, 41 figs 7, 10–11; 17; 19; 21; 23; 38). Only phase A of this site links typologically to the ProtoTiszapolgár period (Horváth 1982, Fig. 16,1–8; 1987, Fig. 8).The rectification was made first: Horváth 2005, 60–61.
Questions relating to the Proto-Tiszapolgár Period in South-Eastern Hungary
1
2
3
4
6
7
9
10
13
299
5
8
11
14
12
15
Fig. 2. Diagnostic artifacts from Hódmezővásárhely-Gorzsa A phase of occupation. 1. Block XI. Level 1. Pit 11; 2. Block XV.
Level 3; 3. Block XII. Level 1; 4. Block III. Level 1; 5-6, 14. Block IX. Level 2; 7. Block IX. Layer between levels 1-2; 8, 13.
Section wall between blocks VIII-IX. Level 2; 9. Block XVII/a. Level 2; 10, 15. Block XXXII. Level 1; 11. Block XXXII. Pit
146; 12. Block IX. Level 1.
The stratigraphic sequence contains all main periods of the Tisza culture with the exception of the earliest Formative (i. e. Tisza I /Szakálhát – Tisza transition/Late Szakálhát) one.
The layer sequence of this uppermost Neolithic phase was thin, and superimposed directly on the lower Neolithic
layers. At any rate the next Tiszapolgár-like site – Hódmezővásárhely-Krétasziget – around Gorzsa lies about 5 km to
the south-west, with great probability one of the settlement which came into being following the partial abandonment
300
Ferenc Horváth
1a
2
1b
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Fig. 3. Diagnostic artifacts from Hódmezővásárhely-Gorzsa A phase of occupation. 1, 1a-b, 4-5, 7. Block XXXIII. Pit 193/a;
2. Block VI. Level 3; 3. Block XII. Grave 20; 6. Block XXXI. Pit. 149; 8. Block XII. Pit 3. Block XII; 9. Block XI. Level
1 (?).
Questions relating to the Proto-Tiszapolgár Period in South-Eastern Hungary
301
of the Gorzs tell. The other similar site nearby is Hódmezővásárhely-Kökénydomb. Regrettably both sites yielded
only a few artefacts on the basis of which it is hard to decide whether they should be ranged into the transitional, or
the developed Tiszapolgár periods.
The find material is basically the same as it was in the lower layers, but new traits resembling to the Tiszapolgár
artefacts appear:
– perforated or imperforated pointed knobs (Fig. 2,1.11.15; 3,5.7)
– pointed knobs impressed from both sides ( Fig. 2,12, 3,6)
– impressed punctuates (Fig. 4,3–5)
– lentil shape or tiny pointed knobs (the later in one case are applies as knob-foots, very near to the bottom of the
mug) (Fig. 2,2–5.7–11.13–14; 3,3–4)
– bowls with sharply braking profiles (Fig. 3,3.6.8)
– simple incised zigzags, and arching necks (Fig. 3,9; 4,1)
– shapes of the bowls and frying-pans have changed (Fig. 3,1.8)
The material, the make-up and technique of the vessels are organic continuation of practice of the earlier phases: the
fine ceramics were mostly well levigated and, cleaned, sometimes mica tempered, the surface often highly burnished.
Middle and course ones are mainly grog tempered with smoothed surface. Not expressed, developed Tiszapolgár
traits have been detected.
Traits coming directly from the earlier local pottery:
– incised line running around under the rim of the vessel (Fig. 3,6)
– imperforated tiny pointed-, or lentil shaped knobs (Fig. 2,2–5.9–10; 3,3)
– narrow-necked or “hole-mouth” cups (Fig. 2,8)
– clay spoons (Fig. 3,2)
– certain form of bowls and tumblers (Fig.3,3.5.6)
Among the category of the pedestalled ware the heavy, hollow ones without perforations with thick cylindrical
(strictly perpendicular) walls are exclusively characteristic as well as in a heavy, large, or a lower, finer version
(Fig. 4,2). This type of pedestal never turns up within Tiszapolgár environment, where the downwards widening
elongated cone-frustum-, arching-ended-, or – in overwhelming majority among the Lucska pottery – the bell
shaped types are common. This type appears in western Slovakia during the Pečenady phase (Pavúk/Šiška 197,
Obr. 13,27; Pavúk 1981, Obr. 10,6). Rarely occurs at Lengyel III sites in the lower variant (Károlyi 1992, Pl. 26,11;
Bondár 1995, Pl. 69,173) but it seems to be one of the few really own, specific type of the period besides Gorzsa
at Gomolava II, Uivar, and Lúčky Viničky (Brukner 1980–1981, Abb. 6,5; Schier/Draşovean 2004, Abb. 15,11;
Šiška 1968, Obr. 7,16).
The most unusual feature is a sort of strange paint on some fragments of ceramic. The black and brown spiral or
irregular linear motives occur at Gorzsa altogether only in two cases (Fig. 4,6–7). Similar paint is known from Bapska in the Vinča D2 phase, Kisunyom-Nádasi tábla in Lengyel III period, Tiszaszőlős-Alsórétipart from Tiszapolgár
A-settlement (Dimitrijević 1971, T. 7,2; Károlyi 1992, 20; 16 t. 1; Mészáros 2007, 6 Fig. 10). Traces of painting on
the vessels anyway sporadically and rarely occur both in the Proto-Tiszapolgár period and Tiszapolgár A phases as
well, in the cases of the Endrőd, Tiszaföldvár, Bélmegyer-Mondoki domb, Vésztő- and Körösladány-Bikeri as well as
Endrőd-Hegedűs tanya settlements (Árkus 1980, Taf. 113; Siklódi 1982–1983, 8. t. 5–7; Goldman 1977, 223, 7. kép
11; Gyucha 2009, 4.52. Ábra: A–B, 4.61. Ábra: A, 4.73. Ábra: B, C).
The Number of incised Tisza pottery decreased drastically. It is hard to decide, however, whether the rests of these
fragments were really belonging to this phase, or – because the site is multi layered – might be mingled from the
lower phases up to the uppermost levels by pits deepened down from there (stratigraphic contamination, tell-effect).
Because many of these fragments could be refitted to sherds of the layers beneath, this assumption is more than well
founded.
Hódmezővásárhely-Krétasziget has been ranged to the Tiszapolgár culture by I. Bognár Kutzián (Bognár-Kutzián 1972, Pl.
XLIII,10) but one of the two vessels typologically is standing much closer to Gorzsa, than Tiszapolgár (c.p: Horváth 1987, Fig.
17; 2005, Fig. 10,3), so the site very probably was a settlement and cemetery of PTP age together (see: Kürti 1987, 66 site nr. 39).
The Hódmezővásárhely-Kökénydomb finds at issue – among others fragments of rounded perforated hollow pedestals – considered by J. Banner as belonging to the LN, however, he realized the difference from the Tisza-type artefacts (Banner 1930, 42 Pl.
XV,14–16).
See: Bognár-Kutzián 1972, Fig. 22. Typ E3a.
The shapes of bowls are alternating between types K2j , K3a and K2k according to Bognár-Kutzián’s classification (BognárKutzián 1972, Fig. 25.
See: Bognár-Kutzián 1972, Fig. 25, L5a.
302
Ferenc Horváth
1
2
3
5
7
4
6
8
Fig. 4. Diagnostic artifacts from Hódmezővásárhely-Gorzsa A phase of occupation and Deszk-Vénó. Gorzsa: 1. Block II. Level 1;
2. Block XVIII. Level 2; 3. Block XXXI. Level 1; Block XII. Layer between 1–2. szarmatian age levels; 4. Section wall between
blocks V–XIV. Layer between levels 1–2; 5. Section wall between blocks V–XIV. Level 2; 6. Block XVIII. Layer between Bronze
Age and 1st Neolit Levels; 7–8. Deszk-Vénó: Block II. Pit 1.
Questions relating to the Proto-Tiszapolgár Period in South-Eastern Hungary
1
2
3
4
5
6
303
7
8
9
Fig. 5. Diagnostic artifacts from Deszk-Vénó 1. Block III. Pit 1; 2–4, 6-7, 9. Block II. Pit. 3; 5, 8. Block I. Between
80–100 cm.
304
Ferenc Horváth
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
7
9
10
Fig. 6. Diagnostic artifacts from Deszk-Vénó 1, 3–4, 6-8. Block II. Pit.3; 2, 5. Bock III. Pit. 1; 9–10. Block I. Between
80–100 cm.
Questions relating to the Proto-Tiszapolgár Period in South-Eastern Hungary
1
2
5
6
3
305
4
7
9
8
10
11
12
Fig. 7. Diagnostic artifacts from Deszk-Vénó 1, 5–6, 9, 11. Block II. Pit. 3; 2–3. Block II. Pit. 4; 4. Block II. -135 cm; 7, 12. Block
II. Between 80–100 cm; 9. Block I. Between 80–100 cm.
306
Ferenc Horváth
Deszk-Vénó (1985)
In all likelihood it must be a settlement of the Deszk cemetery. The site lies south of the Maros River and north of
the Szeged-Makó highway on bank of wide floodplain of the river. Three five by five meters test-squares were opened
in 1985. The material of this site has two main features. On the one hand the ceramics shows an overwhelmingly
close connection with those of the Gorzsa pottery:
– incised lines running around under the rim or on the neck of the vessel (Fig. 5,2.5.8; 7,1)
– tiny pointed knobs (Fig. 5,5; 6,5.10; 7,5–6.10)
– or big ones with bird’s head-like forming (Fig. 7,7)
– clay spoons (Fig. 7,12)
– rectangular perforations (Fig. 6,5–6)
– slightly carinated, open bowls (Fig. 6,1–2)
– certain form of tumblers and mugs (Fig. 7,2–6)
– in one case the trace of black paint can be seen around the knob (Fig.7,10)
On the other hand inevitable components of the Tiszapolgár pottery appear:
– perforated or imperforated pointed knobs impressed from both sides (Fig. 5,2.9; 6,3.5)
– impressed punctuates
– carinated vessels with high arching neck (Fig. 5,1–2)
– carinated bowls (Fig. 6,1)
– rounded perforations (Fig. 6,8–10)
At the same time there are features which should be peculiar to PTP period: e. g. plastic ribs applied in zigzag or
wavy lines under the rim (Fig. 7,8–9) can be found in the Herpály PTP level 5th, in the uppermost Neolithic phase
of Szegvár-Tűzköves, but seem to be characteristic neither of the former LN, nor of the following Tiszapolgár period (Kalicz/Raczky 1984, Fig. 39,11.13).The low, hollow pedestal with very much arching wall and rectangular or
rounded perforations (Fig. 6,5)10. A miscellaneous clay object, a kind of table leg’s fragment has no parallels in PTP
and Tiszapolgár periods (Fig. 7,11). Reconstruction and decision of the function of the fragment is possible, however,
by a very similar altar model from the Lengyel II–III period came to light at Patvarc (County Nógrád)11.
An important find is the bowl fragment from Pit Nr. 1 in Block II12 which proved to be imported from Transylvanian
Petreşti B culture.
Szegvár-Tűzköves (1986)
Tell settlement of the Tisza culture comprising the Formative (I), Early (II), and Classic (III) periods of that. Compared to the layer sequence of Gorzsa, artefacts typologically can be associated with the latest periods of the Tisza
culture (Gorzsa C and B phases of occupation, i. e. Tisza IV period) were missing at Szegvár. We investigated the
stratigraphic situations of the site by 5 x 5 meters test-square on the single intact area, which comprised 22 Neolithic
levels between 7 and 2913 Previous researches have either not recorded settlement traces of an Early Copper Age community here. On occasion of the 9 excavations carried out since 1955 up to 1986 none of one piece of Tiszapolgár
material came to light. Though I. Bognár-Kutzián has mentioned one stray find, a mug from Szentes-Tűzköves (site is
identical with Szegvár-Tűzköves), but it is not typical Tiszapolgár one, one may range it to PTP period without further
ado (Bognár-Kutzián 1972, 84, cat. nr. 187 Pl. 53,6).
See: Bognár-Kutzián 1972, 178–180 Pls. XVI–XIX.
The test excavation was shortly presented first at the Szekszárd International Prehistoric conference in 1985 (Horváth 1986, 93
Pl. VI).
Among the incomparably more numerous Tiszapolgár finds there are only scattered examples of this sort of ribs. These applications in one case occur on shoulder and one case on belly of the Tiszapolgár B vessels (Bognár-Kutzián 1972, Pl. 27,8; Diaconescu
2009, 93 cat. nr. 24 Pl. 24,2).
Besides Deszk-Vénó and Uivar (Schier/Draşovean 2004, Abb. 25,10) I have found only one example among Tiszapolgár pottery
when both start and end of the arch are touching the vertical line (Cămin/Kálmánd, jud. Satu-Mare/Szatmár. In: Diaconescu 2009,
95, cat. nr. 33 Pl. 33,1).
10
Excavation of N. Kalicz (N. Kalicz, A termelőgazdálkodás kezdetei a Dunántúlon. II (Budapest 1988) Fig. 232,8. Manuscript in
the Library of Hungarian Academy of Sciences). The altar model has been published by E. Bánffy, who dated to the Lengyel II.
Phase (Bánffy 1997, 18 cat. nr. 21 Fig. 7,3 without scale).
11
Móra Ferenc Museum, Szeged. Inv. Nr.: Ö. 2012.4.498+2475: Bowl-fragment of yellowish-brown, slipped, black spotted,
burnished. My suspicion that the fragment might have come from the Petreşti culture has been verified by F. Draşovean, who has
identified as belonging to Petreşti B period. I wish to thank his help in this way too. Cp.: Paul 1992, Pl. XIX. Left, upper bowl.
12
Within the stratigraphic sequence the levels (interfaces) dividing layers between them have been numbered from above to downwards (1–29) in the course of the exploration, forthwith, then and there.
13
Questions relating to the Proto-Tiszapolgár Period in South-Eastern Hungary
307
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Fig. 8. Diagnostic artifacts from Szegvár-Tűzköves. Block XXI. 1–3. Level 7; 4. Betweeen levels 6–7; 5, 6, 9. Between levels 7–8;
7, 8. Between levels 8–9.
308
Ferenc Horváth
The 7th level meant here the end of the Neolithic Age. The layer between 6 and 7th levels comprised ruins of a house with
strongly burnt wattle-and-daub walls. Among the remains a big grinding stone and piles of crushed vessels laid14. The vessel
forms differ significantly compared to pottery of the whole layer sequence of the site. Parallels of the open bowl (Fig. 8,1)
can be found among any LN or ECA materials, but the other two vessels have specific significance. The flask with narrowing
cylindrical neck and pressed belly is a rather rare form (Fig. 8,2). It appears on the Lengyel settlement at Aszód, in the 8th level
of Herpály and among the finds of the Lengyel III period in Transdanubia (Kalicz 1985, 55 Fig. 8; 2008, Abb. 9,1.6; Raczky
1987, Fig. 6; Károlyi 1994, Taf. III. 12: Szombathely-Újperint)15.. According to the parallels it can be associated as well with
the LN or earliest CA. The other one with wider, slightly arching neck and pressed globular belly means a somewhat more essential basis for dating (Fig. 8,3). The occurrences of this type seem to mark more precisely the relative chronological place of
the assemblage: Deszk-Vénó, Polgár-Bosnyákdomb, Herpály 5th level, which means inevitable the PTP period. The form survives during the Tiszapolgár B phase in a higher necked or of pedestalled variants (Horváth 1986, Pl. VI. 10; Raczky/Anders
2009, 8. Fig. 10; Kalicz/Raczky 1984, Fig. 10,8; Bognár-Kutzián 1972, Typ J4: Pl. XLVI,12; XXIX,2). The closest parallel,
however, can be found among the old stray finds of Kenézlő. But to tell the truth, this closest equivalent in one way is hiding
chronological uncertainty as well16. So, the question whether this level means the missing LN or the PTP period at SzegvárTűzköves, owing to lack of sufficient finds remains open. The uppermost Neolithic levels 7–9 yielded pottery fragments which
can be associated either with the latest Neolithic (Gorzsa C–B phases) or with the PTP period (Fig. 8,4–10).
Discussion
Ever since the PTP phenomenon have born, archaeologists are waiting for a precise, detailed determination and
specification of the artefacts by help of which one can state about a find material most assuredly: it is belonging to
this period or not. But this demand is not easy to be fulfilling just because not only the period, but the assemblages of
artefact have a trait of transitional. LN and ECA characteristics appear together in the same associations. That is why
– for example in the Southern part of Great Hungarian Plain – frequently it is quite problematic to determine solely
by surface survey whether a site can be linked to the Gorzsa group or the ECA Tiszapolgár culture, or a transitional
period. So, even a most careful and detailed surface survey can be misleading when reconstructing the changes of the
settlement organization in these periods. That is why our present study is intentionally a typological approach. Nevertheless some elements and components can be separated which look to be existing more or less restrictedly during
the transitional period. The starting point of the selection is when an element (form, decoration, or detail) of ceramics does not occur either among the previous LN-, or the succeeding ECA find assemblages on a given area where a
distinct archaeological group has been specified. Although this collection may gradually be completed in the future,
presently the number of such traits exclusively characterize the transitional period is extremely few (Fig. 9):
– not perforated, strictly perpendicular thick walled pedestals
– “Polgár Bosnyákdomb-Szegvár (nr. 3) – type of” vessel
– low, arching pedestal with rectangular or rounded perforation
– plastic ribs in zigzag or wavy line under the rim
– bell-shaped pedestal (in the south)17.
– incised zigzag motifs
The proportions may naturally change as a result of wider range collection of evidences, or by turning up of new
assemblages in the future. But at present – because of the rare exclusively specific traits of the transition period
14
Koszta József Museum, Szentes, Inv. Nr.: 2011.3.6901; 6899; 6900.
In the Museum of Resiţa (Rumania) I happened to see a very close parallel of the pot from the Salcuţa IIb period at Cuptoare
Sfogea site. According to I. Bognár-Kutzián Salcuţa II a–b phases were contemporaneous with Tiszapolgár A period: Basatanya
A – Lucska A – Deszk A – latest Sopot-Lengyel III, etc (Bognár-Kutzián 1972, 208). The same parallelism has been proposed by
D. Diaconescu too: Tiszapolgár A – Petresti AB (end) – B – Cucuteni A1 – (end) – A2 – Gumelniţa A2 – Salcuţa IIa–b – Vinča
D1 (end) – D2 (early) – Lengyel III /Brodzany (Diaconescu 2009, 262).
15
The vessel in question has been published by an inaccurate drawing (Bognár-Kutzián 1966, Abb. 6,13). The original one
(Kenézlő, Hungarian National Museum, inv. nr: LN/5/1936 and 57. 94. 9, respectively) has stronger arching neck, lesser handles
and a little more pressed body. The assemblage of stray finds from Kenézlő itself was published first as linking to the Tisza culture
by F. Tompa. The vessel under discussion, however, with other finds has been left out both in the case of the first (Tompa 1929,
Taf. 41) and of the second publication, because Tompa possible did not range it to the Tisza culture (Tompa 1937, Taf. 12,1–15).
I. Kutzián listed our vessel among the types of the Herpály-group, without nearer periodization (Bognár-Kutzián, 1966, Abb. 6).
16
This type has a special place in the transitional period as it occurs in the area of Eastern Slovakia both among the LN Polgár,
the PTP and Lucska group of Tiszapolgár assemblages (Šiška 1968, Obr. 12,15–17; 7,15–17; 14,18). In spite of all these facts I
have taken it into account as PTP trait because beyond this area it occurs neither previously nor fallowing the PTP period, and its
appearance is restricted to the two Deszk sites.
17
Questions relating to the Proto-Tiszapolgár Period in South-Eastern Hungary
309
Fig. 9. Ceramic types characteristic in the transitional period.
– the concept of Proto-Tiszapolgár as a self-dependent archaeological unit (culture, phase) in typological respect
is groundless. It may only mark the time-period of transition between the decay of the LN and the appearance of
developed ECA on that area where in the succeeding period Tiszapolgár features distributed. Using this name is
not relevant either, because the different LN antecedents as Gorzsa, Herpály, Csőszhalom, Lengyel (east of the
Danube), and Vinča C in Bačka and Banat, never ever formed neither any kind of uniform domain of culture nor
of finds.
310
Ferenc Horváth
Relative and absolute chronology
Chronology of the transition in the different areas of the Great Hungarian Plain seems not to be synchronous in the
light of the new radiocarbon data. Alongside and north of the Körös valley it began around 4600 cal BC. The latest
analyses established the time span of the transitional phase (PTP) between 4600–4500 and the start of the Tiszapolgár
culture around 4500/4000 cal BC (Parkinson et. al 2004, 68–69; Kaminská 2007, 207; Raczky/Anders 2009, 17; Yerkes/Gyucha/Parkinson 2009, 1087; Oross et al. 2010, 392–401). Additionally, while in Eastern Slovakia and North of
the Körös rivers valley the changes just start around that time with “so called PTP” transition, parallel to that in the
Körös region already the developed variant of the Tiszapolgár culture (Tiszaug-Kisrétpart group) is thought to have
appear (Parkinson et al. 2004, Fig. 5; 2004a, 68–69 Figs 9–11).
Although from the Southern part of the Great Hungarian Plain more than 100 radiocarbon (and some thermoluminescence, and archaeomagnetic) samples from the Neolithic Age have been collected and analyzed between the
1970–1990s in different laboratories18, we have only a few samples from layers linked to the transitional period
(Hertelendi/Horváth 1992, 862, and unpublished series). Four dates which had been collected from PTP stratigraphic
units (Gorzsa, Block IX. Level 2nd and layer between levels 2–3) or as may be supposed on typo-chronological base
as may belong to PTP layer (Deszk-Vénó), and four dates from graves of Gorzsa yielded the youngest values of the
grave series have been re-calibrated. One date from Deszk-Ordos, settlement with finds of typical Gorzsa type has
been involved too, as a comparison to Gorzsa dates (Fig. 10):
Site and Lab.
Sample
Context
Age (yr) BP
1σ cal BC
2 σ cal BC
Reference
5570 ± 60
4460–4350
4540–4330
Hertelendy/
Horváth 1992,
861/3
5700±60
4610–4450
4710–4440
unpublished
5670±60
4590–4440
4690–4630
unpublished
5530 ± 60
4450–4330
4500–4260
unpublished
5570±60
4460–4350
4540–4330
unpublished
5610±60
4490–4360
4590–4570
unpublished
5640±60
4540–4440
4620–4340
unpublished
5690±60
4610–4450
4690–4440
unpublished
Gorzsa
1
Deb-1389
animal bone
2
Deb- 1216
animal bone
3
Deb- 1239
animal bone
4
Deb-1662
animal bone
5
Deb- 1681
human bone
6
Deb-3110
charcoal
(grave good)
7
Deb-1644
charcoal
(grave good)
8
Deb-1647
human bone
Deszk-Vénó
Block IX.
Level 2. Phase
A
Block IX.
Level 2. Phase
A
Block IX.
Level 2. Phase
A
Block IX.
Between
Levels 2-3.
Phase A
Block XII.
Grave 20.
Phase A (?)
Block IX.
Grave 26.
Phase B
Block IX.
Grave 33.
Phase B
Block XII.
Grave 18.
Phase B
9
Deb-1201
animal bone
Block II. pit
nr. 3
5420±60
4350–4180
4370–4050
10
Bln-3115
charcoal
Block II. pit
nr.3.
5340±60
4260–4150
4330–4040
charcoal
Block I. Pit
nr. 1
5595±65
4490–4350
4590–4570
Hertelendy/
Horváth 1992,
861/3
Horváth 1991,
Fig.4.
Deszk-Ordos
11
Bln-1934
Tálas/Raczky,
1987, 28.
Fig. 10. Recalibrated radiocarbon dates from Hódmezővásárhely-Gorzsa-A, Deszk-Vénó and Deszk-Ordos.
Radiocarbon: Berlin (1978, unpublished), Frankfurt (Protsch/Weninger 1984, 191–192), Zagreb (Benkő et al. 1989, Tab. 2),
Debrecen (Hertelendi/Horváth 1992, 861–863), Poznań (Gulyás et al. 2010, 1458–1464; TL: Budapest (Benkő et al. 1989, 999);
AM: Budapest (Márton 2009, 1351–1352).
18
Questions relating to the Proto-Tiszapolgár Period in South-Eastern Hungary
311
The sequence calibration of Block IX level 2 (Phase A) dates yielded (1σ) 4690–4460 cal BC (Start Boundary)
and 4430–4310 cal BC (End Boundary) with a life span of 0–130 years (Figs 11–12). In the case of graves 18, 33, 26
(phase B) yielded 4630–4450 cal BC (Start Boundary) and 4500–4330 cal BC (End Boundary) with a time span of
0–90 years19 (Figs 13–14). The date of grave nr 20 from Block XII because of its uncertain phasing has been left for
the present out of the sequence.
Although the long intervals given cannot be adapted for fine definition the life span of a settlement’s phase, but
overlapping of Phase A and B with PTP and Tiszapolgár sum probabilities render them likely (Raczky/Anders 2009,
17; Yerkes/Gyucha/Parkinson 2009, 1087; Oross et al. 2010, 392–401)20. These parallelisms are, however, – at least
seemingly – in contradiction with the late Gorzsa (Tisza) characters of Phase B and PTP of Phase A find assemblages.
I am fully aware that there are serious risks in comparing traditional radiocarbon range of dates provided by different laboratories to those which were measured by more advanced AMS method. Analysis of a range of dates taken at
random from the total range of a site may also lead to mistakes. Tentative use of them with reservations is inevitable,
however, when one intends to outline the actual state of research of a given area. A real solution of the questions
arisen needs the recalibration of the total sequence of traditional dates from Gorzsa and Szegvár and, to correct them
by new measurements from provenances of key-importance.
In case of Deszk-Vénó the “Combined” data of two radiocarbon dates from Block II. pit nr. 3 (Horváth 1991,
269, and Fig. 4; Hertelendy/Horváth 1992, 863) yielded 4330–4080 cal BC (1σ) and 4340–4050 cal BC (2 σ) and
gave a very late interval compared to other PTP values (Fig. 15). The given intervals mean already the fully developed ECA Tiszapolgár period and, are in contradiction with the typo-chronology of the site. Nevertheless, they
are contemporary with the range of dates from other Tiszapolgár cemeteries and settlements, and the older half of
the final occupation phases at Vésztő-Bikeri and Körösladány-Bikeri between 4350 and 4050 cal BC (Yerkes et al.
2009, 1086). This late dating of Deszk-Vénó is also supported by the Transylvanian Petreşti B “imported” bowl
fragment from Pit Nr. 1 in Block II. Petreşti B period has been synchronized with Tiszapolgár B phase (defined
by I. Bognár-Kutzián) already21, but this is the first case when concrete connection of Tiszapolgár and Petresti
cultures can be detected. Because of all these facts – despite the transitional character of the find assemblage of
Deszk-Vénó – the settlement itself must be dated to the ECA and with great probability might be the settlement of
the Deszk A and B cemeteries.
From Szegvár-Tűzköves four radiocarbon dates on animal bones from levels 7–10, ranging from 5330–5070 cal
BC (1σ) to 4940–4790 cal BC (1σ) (Deb-4459, 4248, 4456, 4256, unpublished) proved to be older due to stratigraphic
contamination than the date on human bone from grave nr. 1, deepened from the lower layer between levels 9–10
(Deb-1355: 5830±60 bc; 4780–4610 cal BC, 1σ). Because the stratigraphic position of the grave and the place of
the sample are perfectly reliable, this interval can only be a very early terminus post quem referring to the levels 7–9
which evidently must be younger22. This approach – as typo-chronology – does not even prove directly that layer 7
might have belonged to PTP period, but maintains this assumption till further support or disproval.
If we exclude Szegvár-Tűzköves from our present consideration for lack of reliable radiocarbon dates, Gorzsa
A phase and Deszk-Vénó have yielded 14C series which overlap considerably with the timespan of the ECA. Untill
the middle of the 1990s – due to lack of required number of dates – there was no general convention in Hungarian
prehistory regarding the calibrated time interval of PTP period. On the occasion of the first summary on Neolithic radiocarbon chronology of Hungary the end of the LN has been established around 4400/4300 BC, and the PTP period
between 4523–4248 cal BC (1σ), 4704–4223 Cal. BC (2σ), respectively (Hertelendi et al. 1995, Figs 1–2). Beside
typological assumptions that was the reason why I kept on ranging the assemblages of Gorzsa A phase and the dates
to the PTP period. Similar dates from Berettyóújfalu-Herpály from PTP level 5 seemed to support this ranging.
The traditional radiocarbon dates have been recalibrated and sequenced by K. Oross, who is to process the entire 14C ranges of
LN South Alföld in the frame of the present (OTKA- K- 84151) project.
19
The single thermoluminescence date from Phase A: Bud-59: 4400±670 (Benkő et al. 1989, Tab. 2 Fig. 6) does not really contribute to the discernment. Although youngest archaeomagnetic dates between 4400 and 4300 from Gorzsa yielded the same time
span, dates from phase late C between 4650–4600 BC and 4400 BC (Márton 2009, 1352 Tab. 1) look to be most similar to the
latest definition of PTP period between 4600 and 4500 cal BC, but overlap that first century between 4500 and 4400 BC which
has been defined as belonging already to Early Tiszapolgár Period. I am not blind to the drawbacks of using dates deriving from
different methods and labs parallel, but keeping back those results without mentioning should even be questionable.
20
21
Diaconescu 2009, 262.
This contradiction is due to the so called “tell effect” when older radiocarbon samples (and other artefacts) got into secondary
(or umpteenth) position (to higher level) by pits deepening from higher levels down to levels beneath. With one way this situation
suggests improper or not in situ – i.e. posterior – collecting of samples. In our case the latter is valid in the case of the 7–9 levels.
22
312
Ferenc Horváth
Fig. 11. Sequence calibration of 3 radiocarbon dates from Hódmezővásárhely-Gorzsa Block IX. Level 2. Phase A.
Fig. 12. Life span calculation of 3 radiocarbon dates from Hódmezővásárhely-Gorzsa Block IX. Level 2. Phase A.
Questions relating to the Proto-Tiszapolgár Period in South-Eastern Hungary
Fig. 13. Sequence calibration of 3 radiocarbon dates from Hódmezővásárhely-Gorzsa Block IX. Level 2. Phase B.
Fig. 14. Life span calculation of 3 radiocarbon dates from Hódmezővásárhely-Gorzsa Block IX. Level 2. Phase B.
313
314
Ferenc Horváth
Fig. 15. “Combine” group calibration of 2 radiocarbon dates from Deszk-Vénó. Block II, Pit 3.
In the meantime during the last decade new ranges of dates have been produced by the more advanced AMS
method, replaced the timespan of PTP and ECA by about one century further back than they had been established earlier (Vésztő-Bikeri, Körösladány-Bikeri, Čičarovce/Csicser, Polgár-Bosnyákdomb, Hajdúböszörmény-Ficsori dűlő,
Rákóczifalva-Bagi-föld)23.
But contradictions between typology and radiometry do existing in both cases. An explanation in the case of Gorzsa
can be of two different sorts: 1: a supposed genuine Tiszapolgár settlement might be located outside of the area investigated untill 1996, and some less typical Tiszapolgár finds got to the area of exploration, mingling among rests
of the uppermost Neolithic occupation level together with those animal bones which have been used as 14C samples
for measurements. 2: characteristic ceramic types of Gorzsa in the area of Tisza-Maros confluve overwhelmingly
survived during the formation of the material culture of Tiszapolgár period in and north of the Körös valley. Definite
features of Tiszapolgár ceramics appeared only during the second part of its development in the South (Deszk B and
sites around Hódmezővásárhely). Under such circumstances the late Phases of Gorzsa (C and B) might be contemporaneous with PTP period north of the Körös valley, while the material culture of these phases appears inevitable of
Gorzsa (Tisza) characters. This possibility is supported by a single 14C date from Deszk-Ordos, a site close to DeszkVénó, with definitely Gorzsa type of ceramics (4490–4350 cal BC, 1σ), which already falls within the interval of the
Early Tiszapolgár period24.
Discrepancies between find assemblages classified as PTP or Tiszapolgár character and their 14C data, however,
exist not only in the Tisza-Maros Angle. Dates from Berettyóújfalu-Herpály layer (PTP levels) 6–5 and 5 needs more
attention. Two of the three fall into an interval between 4550–4400 cal BC, i. e. they are contemporaneous partly
with PTP partly with the early Tiszapolgár period. The third one (Bln-2686: 5750±50 b.p) which suggests sum prob-
23
As for the latter two sites, see: Kovács/Váczi 2007, Tab. 1; Csányi/Raczky/Tárnoky 2009.
The date has been recalibrated by Yerkes et al. too (2009, 1105). They have, however, mistaken when used ±100 standard deviation instead of the right (Bln-1934) 5595±65 age BP. So, their 4529–4344 cal BC date is inaccurate.
24
Questions relating to the Proto-Tiszapolgár Period in South-Eastern Hungary
315
Fig. 16. Recalibration of the Bln-1934 date of Deszk-Ordos.
abilities of Herpály PTP period between 4596–4328 cal BC (1 σ) seems to be too old for the dating of levels 6–5 as
compared to the values of levels 7 and 6 (Kalicz/Raczky 1987, 29; Yerkes et al. 2009, 1094–95; 1104).
As for Vésztő- and Körösladány-Bikeri material, the earliest radiocarbon dates (between about 4650 and 4450 cal
BC) and the pottery assemblages with developed Tiszapolgár B character are in seeming contradiction (although
these earliest dates may come from older recycled wooden posts or charred materials)25.
Although the author classified the site at Bélmegyer-Mondoki domb (county Békés), as a very early Tiszapolgár
settlement by parallels he mentioned (Darvas, Derecske, Szentpéterszeg) the find materialcan be linked to Tiszapolgár A1 phase i.e. – as it could be seen above – theoretically to the PTP period (Goldman 1977, 221–234).
In the case of this site, ceramic assemblages of Tiszapolgár A- character are associated with data of mid Tiszapolgár
age (4233–4187 cal BC, 1σ), and corresponding to the final occupation phases of Vésztő-Bikeri and KörösladányBikeri between 4350 and 4050 cal BC26. Moreover, in the case of the latter Tiszaug-Kisrétpart-type incised ceramic
fragments have been detected27, whose distinct style characterizes the ceramic assemblage of Vésztő- and Körösladány-Bikeri too (Parkinson et al. 2004, Fig. 11,B; Gyucha 2009, Figs 4,14; 4,59; 4,73). Nevertheless – as a result of
analysing the artefacts of the excavation at Tiszaföldvár –, Tiszaug group was already earlier suggested to have started
even from the beginning, i. e. from the A-phase of the Tiszapolgár culture (Siklódi 1982–1983, 17) and not only from
Tiszapolgár B phase as it had earlier been stated by I. Bognár-Kutzián (Bognár-Kutzián 1972, 190). Albeit, distinct
Kisrétpart-type pottery seems hard to be appear before Tiszapolgár A Phase.
One problem seems to be solved by this way, but the argument according to which the Tiszapolgár A-phase can be
regarded as PTP period (Kalicz/Raczky, 1984; 1987) comes into contradiction – at least in the Körös region – both
25
Yerkes/Gyucha/Parkinson 2009, 1085.
26
Ibid. 1086.
According to the author, two fragments of incised decoration have been made by different technology as Tiszaug-Kisrétpart
pottery (Goldman 1979, 223 Fig. 8,10, 12,6).
27
316
Ferenc Horváth
with the latest definition of the calibrated 14C- time span and the suspected ceramic- typological characteristics of the
PTP period, in a reversed way as it was seen in the Tisza-Maros confluve.
A contradiction between the radiometric absolute chronology and typo-chronology can be recognised in the act not
only in the Körös Region and the Tisza-Maros confluve, however, but in the Northern Bačka as well. Ceramics from
the Early Copper Age layer of the Uivar (Úivár) tell represented similarly only a very few traits of transition, without
14
C dates referring to PTO or Tiszapolgár features, but the youngest group of radiocarbon data between 4700 and 4500
cal BC overlaps those of PTP period discussed above (Schier/Draşovean 2004, 201–205).
In addition in the light of the archaeological researches in the last decades it has been revealed that the southern
PTP sites (Gomolava, Sirig, Gospođjinci, Uivar) have to be regarded as a distinct regional unit whose local base was
the Vinča culture, because the Gorzsa group never ever got so far to the South. So, the little known Gospođinci type
pottery (Brukner 1974, 441) perhaps could be the antecedent of this southernmost Tiszapolgár complex.
Searching to explain the contradictions in question we have to agree to the opinion, according to which on the one
hand the formation of the Tiszapolgár culture might have progressed not at the same pace in different regions of the
Great Hungarian Plain and, altogether should be lasted about one century long period. On the other hand it emerged
earlier in the Körös region as compared to the other parts of the Great Hungarian Plain even parallel to the PTP period
and, perhaps should have affected the changes of material culture in neighbouring regions. Consequently this suspicion is supported by the fact that life of Tisza settlements in the Körös region – where the latest phase of this culture
is absent – got to their ends earlier than in other parts of the Great Hungarian Plain (Gyucha 2009, 307–312; 390;
Yerkes/Gyucha/Parkinson 2009, 1086).
In full concordance with the statements above, the Tisza culture’s distribution territory was significantly decreasing during its last period compared to its earlier periods and became restricted to the areas deeply south of the Körös
valley to the Tisza-Maros Angle and North Bácska-Bánát (Horváth 1986, 93; 1989, 90; 2005, 62). In this context
parallel to the Latest Tisza period in and north of the Körös valley, the transition between LN and ECA had gradually
been emerging.
The use of the terminus technicus PTP can hardly be understood as an ethno-archaeological unit because of the different pace of the transition in the different regions as can be seen from contradictions between absolute chronology
and typological aspects of traditional archaeology as well.
Undoubtedly, regional differences in the material and nonmaterial culture existed, in the sphere of subsistence
strategies as well as in the directions of interactions and intercommunications between LN communities of the Great
Hungarian Plain and were decreasing significantly by a process of homogenization during this period of transition,
accomplished in the Tiszapolgár period. The fundamental questions are, however, as follows: on the one hand to what
causes can we ascribe the fact of the homogenization? On the other hand: how migth the process of homogenization
have passed in practice. The study of these questions is, however, beyond the frames of this present paper.
Acknowledgements
The research described in this paper was supported by a grant from the Hungarian National Academy of Sciences
(OTKA K- 84151. Gorzsa and the Late Neolithic of the Southern Great Hungarian Plain). Special thank is due to
Krisztián Oross (Inst. Arch. of Hung. Academy of Sciences, Budapest, and participant researcher of our OTKA
project) who re-calibrated the radiocarbon dates reported here. Drawings prepared by Margit Koncz (Móra Ferenc
Múzeum, Szeged).
References
Árkus 1880: P. Árkus, Endrőd-Polyákdűlő, Hegedűs Tanya. Mitt. Arch. Inst. Ungar. Akad. 8–9, 1980, 207–209.
Banner 1930: J. Banner, A kökénydombi neolithkori telep – Die neolithische Ansiedlung von Kökénydomb. Dolg. M.
Kir. Tudományegyetem Régiségtudományi Intézetéből. 6, 1930 (Szeged 1930).
Bánffy 1997: E. Bánffy, Cult objects of the Neolithic Lengyel culture. Connections and Interpretation (Budapest
1997).
Benkő et al. 1989: L. Benkő/F. Horváth/N. Horvatinčić, Radiocarbon and termoluminescence dating of prehistoric
sites in Hungary and Yugoslavia. Radiocarbon 31/3, 1989, 992–1002.
Bognár-Kutzián 1972: I. Bognár-Kutzián, The Early Copper Age Tiszapolgár Culture in the Carpathian Basin (Budapest 1972).
Bondár 1995: M. Bondár, The settlement of the Lengyel culture at Zalaszentbalázs. Antaeus 22, 1995, 51–70.
Brukner 1969: B. Brukner, Zur Frage der territorialen Beziehungen der Vinča- und Lengyel Gruppe. Štud. Zvesti
Arch. Ústavu 17, 1969, 61–71.
Questions relating to the Proto-Tiszapolgár Period in South-Eastern Hungary
317
Brukner 1974: B. Brukner, The Early and the Middle Eneolithic period. In: B. Brukner/B. Jovanović/N. Tasić (eds),
Praistorija Vojvodine – Vojvodina in prehistory (Novy Sad 1974) 440–441.
Brukner 1980–1981: B. Brukner, Zum Problem der Auflösung der Frühäneolithischen Kulturen in Süd-Ostpannonien. Arch. Iugoslavica 20–21, 1980–1981 (1983), 16–26.
Csányi/Raczky/Tárnoki 2009: M. Csányi/P. Raczky/J. Tárnoky, Előzetes jelentés a rézkori bodrogkeresztúri kultúra
Rákóczifalva-Bagi-földön feltárt temetőjéről – Preliminary Report on the Cemetary of the Bodrogkeresztúr Culture
Excavated at Rákóczifalva-Bagi-föld. Tisicum 18, 2009, 13–34.
Diaconescu 2009: D. Diaconescu, Cultura Tiszapolgár în România (Sibiu 2009).
Dimitrijević 1971: S. Dimitrijević, Zu einigen Fragen des Spätneolithikums und Frühäneolithikums in Nordjugoslavien. Actes VIIIe Congr. Scien. Préhist. Protohist. 1 (Beograd 1971) 141–172.
Draşovean 1997: F. Draşovean, Die Petreşti-Kultur im Banat. Praehist. Zeitschr. 72/1, 1997, 54–80.
Ecsedy 1982: I. Ecsedy, A keletmagyarországi rézkor fejlődésének fontosabb tényezői – On the factors of the Copper
Age development in Eastern Hungary. Janus Pannonius Múz. Évk. XXVI, 1981 (1982), 73–95.
Gulyás et al. 2010: S. Gulyás/P. Sümegi/M. Molnár, New Radiocarbon Dates from the Late Neolithic Tell Settlement
of Hódmezővásárhely-Gorzsa, SE Hungary. In: A. J. T. Hjull (ed.), Proceedings of the 20th International Radiocarbon Conference. Radiocarbon 52/2–3 , 2010, 458–1464.
Gyucha/Parkinson/Yerkes 2004: A. Gyucha/W. Parkinson/R. Yerkes, Kora rézkori településkutatás a Dél-Great
Hungarian Plainön. Előzetes jelentés a Körös regionális régészeti program 1998–2002 között végzett munkájáról.
– Vorbericht über das regionale Archäologische Programm “Körös” in den Jahren 1998–2002. Móra Ferenc Múz.
Évkönyve. Stud. Arch. 10, 2004, 25–52.
Gyucha 2009: A. Gyucha, A Körös-vidék kora rézkora. Doktori disszertáció. Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem
Bölcsészettudományi Kar (Budapest 2009).
Hertelendy et al. 1995: E. Hertelendy/N. Kalicz/P. Raczky/F. Horváth/M. Veres/É. Svingor/I. Futó/L. Bartosievich: Reevaluation of the Neolithic in Eastern Hungary based on calibrated radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 37, 239–244.
Hertelendi/Horváth 1992: E. Hertelendy/F. Horváth, Radiocarbon chronology of Late Neolithic settlements in the
Tisza-Maros Region, Hungary. Radiocarbon 34, 1992, 859–866.
Horváth 1991: F. Horváth, Vinča culture and its Connections with the South East Hungarian Neolithic: a Comparison
of Traditional and 14C Chronology. Banatica 11, 1991, 259–273.
Horváth 1982: F. Horváth, A gorzsai halom későneolit rétege – The Late Neolithic Stratum of the Gorzsa tell. Arch.
Ért. 109, 1982, 201–222.
Horváth 1983: F. Horváth, A fejlődés megtorpanása. In: Gy. Kristó (Hrsg), Szeged története I (Szeged 1982) 62–66.
Horváth 1986: F. Horváth, Aspects of Late Neolithic Changes in the Tisza-Maros Region. A Béri Balogh Ádám Múz.
Évk. XIII, 1986, Internationale Prähistorische Konferenz (Szekszárd 1985) 89–102.
Horváth 1987: F. Horváth, Hódmezővásárhely-Gorzsa. A settlement of the Tisza culture. In: L. Tálas/P. Raczky (eds),
The Late Neolothic of the Tisza region (Budapest-Szolnok 1987) 31–46.
Horváth 2005: F. Horváth, Gorzsa. Előzetes eredmények az újkőkori tell 1978 és 1996 közötti feltárásából – Gorzsa.
Preliminary results of the excavation of the Neolithic tell between 1978 and 1996. In: Bende/Lőrinczy (eds), Hétköznapok vénuszai (Hódmezővásárhely 2005) 51–83.
Kalicz 1985: N. Kalicz, Kőkori falu Aszódon – Neolithisches Dorf in Aszód (Aszód 1985).
Kalicz 1994: N. Kalicz, Wenden des Spätneolithikums im Oberen Theißgebiet. Nyíregyházi Józsa András Múz. Évk.
XXXVI, 1994, 263–290.
Kalicz 2008: N. Kalicz, Aszód, Ein gemischter Fundort der Lengyel- und Theiss-Kultur. Commun. Arch. Hungariae
2008, 5–54.
Kalicz/Raczky 1984: N. Kalicz/P. Raczky, Preliminary report on the 1977–1982 excavation at the Neolithic and
Bronze Age tell settlement of Berettyóújfalu-Herpály. Acta Arch. Acad. Scien. Hungaricae 36, 1984, 85–136.
Kamieńská 1987: L. Kamieńská, Prispevok Hrcelav mladej a neskorej dobe kamennej – Contribution to the settlement of Hrcel in the New and Late Stone Age. Arch. Rozhledy 39, 1987, 481–506.
Kamieńská 2007: L. Kamieńská, Praveké osídlenie pieskovej duny Vel’ka Mol’va v Čičaroviach – Prehistoric settlement of the sand dune Vel’ka Mol’va at Čičarovce. Slovenská Arch. LV/2, 2007, 203–260.
Károlyi 1992: M. Károlyi, A korai rézkor emlékei Vas megyében – The Early Copper Age in County Vas. Őskorunk
1 (Szombathely 1992).
Károlyi 1994: M. Károlyi, Die Funde der spätesten Phase der Lengyel-Kultur in Westtransdanubien. Internationales
Symposium über die Lengyel Kultur 1888–1988. Znojmo-Kravsko-Těšetice 3.–7. 10. 1988 (Łódź 1994) 104–111.
Kovács/Váczi 2007: K. Kovács/G. Váczi, The Cemetery of the Early Copper Age Tiszapolgár Culture at Hajdúböszörmény-Ficsori-tó-dűlő. In: J. K. Kozłowski/P. Raczky (eds), The Lengyel, Polgár, and Related Cultures in the Middle/Late Neolithic in Central Europe (Kraków 2007).
318
Ferenc Horváth
Link 2006: T. Link, Das Ende der neolithischen Tellsiedlungen. Ein kulturgeschichtliches Phänomen des 5.
Jahrtausends v.Chr. im Karpatenbecken. Univforsch. prähist. Arch. 134 (Bonn 2006).
Marcsik/Farkas 1988: A. Marcsik/Gy. Farkas, Dél-magyarországi késő neolitikus emberi csontvázak (Gorzsa, Deszk).
Előzetes közlemény – Einige menscliche Skelette aus dem Spätneolithikum in Südungarn (Gorzsa, Deszk). Móra
Ferenc Múz. Évkönyve 1987/1 (1988), 51–67.
Márton 2009: P. Márton, Prehistorical archaeomagnetic directions from Hungary in comparison with those from
south-eastern Europe. Earth Planets Space 61, 2009, 1351–1356.
Maxim 1999: Z. Maxim, Neo-Eneoliticul din Transylvania (Cluj-Napoca 1999).
Oross et al. 2010: K. Oross/T. Marton/A. Whittle/R. E. M. Hedges/L. J. E. Cramp, Die Siedlung der Balaton-Lasinja
Kultur in Balatonszárszó-Kis-erdei-dűlő. In: Šuteková/Pavúk/Kalábková/Kovár (eds), Panta Rhei. Studies in chronology and cultural development of South-Eastern and Central Europe in earlier prehistory presented to Juraj
Pavúk on the occasion of his 75. birthday (Bratislava 2010) 379–405.
Paul 1992: J. Paul, Cultura Petreşti (Bucureşti 1992).
Parkinson et al. 2004: W. Parkinson/A. Gyucha/R. W. Yerkes/A. Sarris/M. Hardy/M. Morris, Settlement reorganization at the end of the Neolithic in Central Europe: recent research in the Körös river valley, Southeastern Hungary.
Euras. Prehist. 2/2, 2004, 57–73.
Pavúk/Šiška 1971: J. Pavúk/S. Šiška, Neolitické a eneolitické osídlenie Slovenska – Neolitische und äneolitische
Besiedlung der Slowakei. Slovenská Arch. 19, 1971, 319–364.
Pavúk 1981: J. Pavúk, Súčasný stav štúdia lengyelskej kultúty na Slovensku – The present state of knowledge of the
Lengyel culture in Slovakia. Pam. Arch. 72, 1981, 255–299.
Parkinson 2006: W. A. Parkinson, The Social Organization of Early Copper Age Tribes on the Great Hungarian Plain.
BAR. Internat. Ser. 1573 (Oxford 2006).
Parkinson et al. 2004: W. A. Parkinson/R. W. Yerkes/A. Gyucha, The Transition from the Neolithic to the Copper
Age: Excavations at Vésztő-Bikeri, Hungary, 2000–2002. Journal Field Arch. 29, 2002–2004, 121.
Parkinson et al. 2004a: W. A. Parkinson/A. Gyucha/R. W. Yerkes/A. Sarris/M. Hardy/M. Morris. Euras. Prehist. 2/2,
2004, 57–73.
Protsch/Weninger: R. Protsch/B. Weninger, Frankfurt radiocarbon dates I. Radiocarbon 26, 1984, 191–192.
Raczky/Anders 2009: P. Raczky/A. Anders, Régészeti kutatások egy késő neolitikus településen. Polgár-Bosnyákdomb. Előzetes jelentés. – Aechaeological research at a late neolithic settlement. Polgár-Bosnyákdomb. Preliminary report. Arch. Ért. 134, 2009, 5–21.
Schier/Draşovean: W. Schier/F. Draşovean, Vorbericht über die rumänisch-deutschen Prospectionen und Ausgrabungen in der befestigten Tellsiedlung von Uivar, jud. Timiş, Rumänien (1998–2002). Praehist. Zeitschr. 79, 2004,
145–230.
Siklódi 1982–1983: Cs. Siklódi, Kora rézkori település Tiszaföldváron – An Early Copper Age Settlement at Tiszaföldvár. Szolnok Megyei Múz. Évk. 1982–1983, 11–31.
Šiška 1968: S. Šiška, Tiszapolgárska kultúra na Slovensku – Die Tiszapolgár – Kultur in der Slowakei. Slovenská
Arch. XVI/1, 1968, 61–175.
Szilágyi 2008: “Változások az Alföldön az i.e. 5. évezred derekán. Átmenet a neolitikumból a rézkorba.” Első Század.
Elektronikus Periodika Archivum 2, 2008, 361–427. http://epa.oszk.hu/01600/01639/00005/pdf/elsoszazad_2008.
pdf
Tompa 1929: F. Tompa, A szalagdíszes agyagművesség kultúrája Magyarországon – Die Bandkeramik in Ungarn.
Die Bükker- und die Theiss-Kultur (Budapest 1929).
Tompa 1937: F. Tompa, 25 Jahre Urgeschichtforschung in Ungarn 1912–1936. Ber. RGK 1934–1935 (1937), 27–
127.
Yerkes/Gyucha/Parkinson 2009: R. W. Yerkes/A. Gyucha/W. Parkinson, A multiscalar approach to modeling the
end of the Neolithic on the Great Hungarian Plain using calibrated radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 51/3, 2009,
1071–1109.
List of authors
Alexandra Anders
Institute of Archaeological Sciences, Eötvös Loránd
University
H-1088 Budapest
Múzeum körút 4/B
Hungary
E-mail: [email protected]
Marta Arzarello
LT TEKNEHUB
Sezione di Scienze Preistoriche e Antropologiche
Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici
Università degli Studi di Ferrara
C.so Ercole I d’Este 32
44100 Ferrara
Italy
E-mail: [email protected]
Eszter Bánffy
Erste Direktorin
Römisch-Germanische Kommission
des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts
Palmengartenstr. 10–12
Germany
E-mail: [email protected]
Mirjana Blagojević
Institute for the Protection of
Cultural Monuments of Serbia – Belgrade
Radoslava Grujića 11
11000 Belgrade
Serbia
E-mail: [email protected]
Yavor Boyadzhiev
National Institute of Archeology with Museum
Saborna 2,
1000 Sofia
Bulgaria
e-mail: [email protected]
Lea Čataj
Croatian Conservation Institute
Archaeological Heritage
Department for Land Archaeology
Kožarska 5
10 000 Zagreb
Croatia
E-mail: [email protected]
Adam N. Crnobrnja
Belgrade City Museum
Zmaj Jovina 1
11000 Beograd
Serbia
E-mail: [email protected]
Dragoş Diaconescu
Muzeul Banatului Timişoara
Piaţa Huniade nr. 1
Romania
E-mail: [email protected]
Florin Draşovean
Muzeul Banatului Timişoara
Piaţa Huniade nr. 1
Romania
E-mail: [email protected]
Roland Gauss
Fraunhofer-Institut für Silicatforschung ISC
Projektgruppe für Wertstoffkreisläufe und
Ressourcenstrategie IWKS
Brentanostraße 2
63755 Alzenau
Germany
E-Mail: [email protected]
Attila Gyucha
Hungarian National Museum
Center of National Heritage Protection
Regional Office in Szeged
Hungary
e-mail: [email protected]
Ferenc Horváth
Móra Ferenc Múzeum
Szeged H-6720
Roosevelt tér I-3
Hungary
E-mail: [email protected]
Borislav Jovanović
Serbian Academy of Science and Arts
Knez Mihailova 35
11000 Belgrade, Serbia
438
List of authors
E-mail: [email protected]
Cornelia-Magda Lazarovici
Institute of Archaeology
Codrescu 6, Pavilion H
Iaşi 700479
Romania
E-mail: [email protected]
Gheorghe Lazarovici
Lucian Blaga University
Facultatea de Istorie si Patrimoniu
Bulevardul Victoriei 10
Sibiu 550024
Romania
E-mail: [email protected]
Saša Lukić
Hauptstr. 93
12159 Berlin
Germany
E-Mail: [email protected]
Tibor Marton
Archaeological Institute of the Hungarian Academy of
Sciences
Úri u. 49
H-1014 Budapest
Hungary
E-mail: [email protected]
Trajče Nacev
Associate Professor
Institute for Archaeology and History
Faculty of Educational Sciences
Goce Delcev University, Stip
Republic of Macedonia
E-mail: [email protected]
Nerantzis Nerantzis
Archaeological Museum of Komotini
A. Syneonidi 4
69100 Komotini, Greece
Greece
E-mail: [email protected]
Krisztián Oross
Archaeological Institute of the Hungarian Academy of
Sciences
Úri u. 49
H-1014 Budapest
Hungary
E-mail: [email protected]
Anett Osztás
Archaeological Institute of the Hungarian Academy of
Sciences
Úri u. 49
H-1014 Budapest
Hungary
E-mail: [email protected],
Stratis Papadopoulos
Archaeological Museum of Kavala
Eryhtrou Stavrou 17
56110 Kavala
Greece
E-mail: [email protected],
[email protected]
William A. Parkinson
Department of Anthropology
Field Museum of Natural History
Chicago, IL
USA
E-mail: [email protected]
Daniel Peters
Freie Universität Berlin
Fachbereich Geschichts- und Kulturwissenschaften
Institut für Prähistorische Archäologie
Altensteinstraße 15
D-14195 Berlin
Germany
E-mail: [email protected]
Jörg Petrasch
Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen
Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte und Archäologie des
Mittelalters
Abteilung für Jüngere Urgeschichte und Frühgeschichte
Schloß Hohentübingen
72070 Tübingen
E-mail: [email protected]
Pál Raczky
Institute of Archaeological Sciences
Eötvös Loránd University
Múzeum körút 4/B
H-1088 Budapest
Hungary
E-mail: [email protected]
Knut Rassmann
Leiter Technische Abteilung
Römisch-Germanische Kommission
des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts
Palmengartenstr. 10–12
Germany
E-mail: [email protected]
Wolfram Schier
List of authors
Freie Universität Berlin
Fachbereich Geschichts- und Kulturwissenschaften
Institut für Prähistorische Archäologie
Altensteinstraße 15
D-14195 Berlin
Germany
E-mail: [email protected]
Zsuzsanna Siklósi
Institute of Archaeological Sciences, Eötvös Loránd
University
Múzeum körút 4/B
H-1088 Budapest
Hungary
E-mail: [email protected]
Marko Sraka
Department of Archaeology
Faculty of Arts
University of Ljubljana
Slovenia
E-mail: [email protected]
Darko Stojanovski
International Doctorate in Quaternary and Prehistory,
PhD student
Department of Geology
University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro
Quinta de Prados
5000-801 Vila Real
Portugal
439
E-mail: [email protected]
Nicolae Ursulescu
“Alexandru Ioan Cuza” University of Iaşi
Faculty of History
Bld. Carol I, no. 11
70056 Iaşi
Romania
E-mail: [email protected]
Michael Videjko
Institute of Archaeology NAS of Ukraine
12 Geroiv Stalingrada Ave
04210 Kyiv-210
Ukraine
E-mail: [email protected]
Richard W. Yerkes
Department of Anthropology
Ohio State University
Columbus, OH
USA
E-mail: [email protected]
István Zalai-Gaál
Archaeological Institute of the Hungarian Academy of
Sciences
Úri u. 49
H-1014 Budapest
Hungary
E-mail: [email protected]