Cover_SD_Tagungen4_Gronenborn:01_Text_mit_Anm_GANZ NEU

Sonderdruck aus / Offprint from Die Neolithisierung Mitteleuropas The Spread of the Neolithic to Central Europe

Die Tagung wurde gefördert durch:

RGZM – TAGUNGEN Band 4 ISBN 978-3-88467-159-7 ISNN 1862-4812

© 2010 Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz € 78,– Bestellungen / orders: shop.rgzm.de [email protected]

Satz: Andrea Fleckenstein, Frankfurt; Claudia Nickel (RGZM) Gesamtredaktion: Stefanie Wefers (RGZM) Endredaktion: Stefanie Wefers, Claudia Nickel (RGZM) Umschlagbild: Michael Ober (RGZM) Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar. Das Werk ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Die dadurch begründeten Rechte, insbesondere die der Übersetzung, des Nachdrucks, der Entnahme von Abbildungen, der Funk- und Fernsehsendung, der Wiedergabe auf fotomechanischem (Fotokopie, Mikrokopie) oder ähnlichem Wege und der Speicherung in Datenverarbeitungsanlagen, Ton- und Bildträgern bleiben, auch bei nur auszugsweiser Verwertung, vorbehalten. Die Vergütungsansprüche des §54, Abs. 2, UrhG. werden durch die Verwertungsgesellschaft Wort wahrgenommen. Herstellung: Druck- und Verlagsservice Volz, Budenheim Printed in Germany

Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum Forschungsinstitut für Vor- und Frühgeschichte

Detlef Gronenborn · Jörg Petrasch (Hrsg.)

DIE NEOLITHISIERUNG MITTELEUROPAS Internationale Tagung, Mainz 24. bis 26. Juni 2005

THE SPREAD OF THE NEOLITHIC TO CENTRAL EUROPE International Symposium, Mainz 24 June - 26 June 2005

Die Neolithisierung – der Übergang von der wildbeuterischen zur Nahrungsmittel produzierenden Lebensweise und damit auch der Übergang von Mobilität zu permanenter Sesshaftigkeit – ist in der Geschichte der Menschheit wohl eines der einschneidendsten Ereignisse überhaupt. Die 37 in diesem Band abgedruckten Artikel sind die aktualisierten Vorträge eines 2005 in Mainz abgehaltenen internationalen Symposiums mit dem Thema »Die Neolithisierung Mitteleuropas«, an dem mehr als 90 Wissenschaftler aus 16 Ländern teilnahmen. Die Beiträge geben einen Überblick über den derzeitigen Stand der Forschungen und decken Themen ab, die vom Nahen Osten, der Balkanhalbinsel über das Karpatenbecken bis zur Ostsee und weiter bis nach Frankreich und Italien reichen. Unter Berücksichtigung neuester Forschungsansätze, etwa der Paläoklimatologie und der Archäogenetik, werden die zentralen Fragen behandelt: Was ist die Neolithisierung? Wie lange dauerte sie? Was waren ihre Ursachen und Mechanismen, und wie lief sie ab? Neolithisation – the transition from an acquiring to a producing mode of subsistence which includes the transition from mobility to full-time sedentism – marks a fundamental change in the history of humankind. Published in this volume are 37 articles which are the updated versions of contributions to a symposium held in Mainz in 2005 with the title »The Spread of the Neolithic to Central Europe«. It was attended by over 90 scholars from 16 countries. The articles allow an insight into the current state of debate with topics reaching from the Near East to the Balkan Peninsula, the Carpathian Basin, further to the Baltic Sea, to France, and to Italy. By applying new approaches of palaeoclimatology and archaeogenetics any of the central questions is covered: What is neolithisation? How long did it last? What were the causes, what were the mechanisms, and how did it happen?

INHALTSVERZEICHNIS / CONTENTS TEIL 1 / PART 1 Detlef Gronenborn · Jörg Petrasch Vorwort / Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX Detlef Gronenborn · Jörg Petrasch Überblick / Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Theoretische Konzepte zum Neolithikum / Theoretical concepts of the Neolithic Michael Kunst Neolithisierung – Eine Begriffsbestimmung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Die Ausbreitung des Neolithikums / The spread of the Neolithic Carsten Lemmen · Kai W. Wirtz Socio-technological revolutions and migration waves: re-examining early world history with a mathematical model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Claudia Kubatzki Climate changes over the past millennia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Lee Clare · Olaf Jöris · Bernhard Weninger Der Übergang vom Spätneolithikum zur Frühen Kupferzeit in Westasien um 8200 cal BP – eine ethnoarchäologische Betrachtung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Detlef Gronenborn Climate, crises and the »neolithisation« of Central Europe between IRD-events 6 and 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Ruth Bollongino · Joachim Burger Phylogeny and population genetics of Neolithic wild and domestic cattle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Das Frühneolithikum im südöstlichen Mitteleuropa und dem Balkan / The Early Neolithic in southeastern Central Europe and the Balkans Angela Kreuz · Elena Marinova · Eva Schäfer · Julian Wiethold A comparison of Early Neolithic crop and weed assemblages from the Linearbandkeramik and the Karanovo Culture: differences and similarities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Michela Spataro The neolithisation of the Central Balkans: leapfrogging diffusion and cultural transmission . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Mihael Budja The neolithisation of South-Eastern Europe: from Y-chromosome dispersals to ceramic figurines . . . . . 107 Joachim Burger · Wolfgang Haak Mitochondriale Haplotypen aus humanen neolithischen Skeletten der LBK bzw. AVK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 Pál Raczky · Pál Sümegi · László Bartosiewicz · Erika Gál · Małgorzata Kaczanowska · Janusz K. Kozłowski · Alexandra Anders Ecological barrier versus mental marginal zone? Problems of the northernmost Körös Culture settlements in the Great Hungarian Plain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 László Domboróczki Neolithisation in Northeastern Hungary: old theories and new perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 Alasdair Whittle The Körös Culture of the Great Hungarian Plain: implications of a recent research project at Ecsegfalva, Co. Békés . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 William J. Eichmann · Róbert Kertész · Tibor Marton Mesolithic in the LBK heartland of Transdanubia, Western Hungary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 Nándor Kalicz An der Grenze »zweier Welten« – Transdanubien (Ungarn) im Frühneolithikum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 Eszter Bánffy · Krisztián Oross The earliest and earlier phase of the LBK in Transdanubia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255 Inna Mateiciucová The beginnings of the Neolithic and raw material distribution networks in eastern Central Europe: symbolic dimensions of the distribution of Szentgál radiolarite . . . . . . . . . . 273 Marek Zvelebil · Alena Lukes · Paul Pettitt The emergence of the LBK Culture: search for the ancestors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301 Ivan Pavlů Die früheste Bandkeramik in Böhmen und die regionalen Unterschiede . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327 Eva Lenneis Kleine Schmuckschnecken in linearbandkeramischen Gräbern: Ein Mosaikstein für unsere Vorstellung der Neolithisierung Mitteleuropas? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333 Jörg Petrasch Demografischer Wandel während der Neolithisierung in Mitteleuropa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351

TEIL 2 / PART 2

Ausbreitung des Neolithikums in den Norden / The spread of the Neolithic to the north Joanna Pyzel Some aspects of the Linear Band Pottery Culture (Linearbandkeramik) settlement in Kuyavia . . . . . . . . 367 Thomas Terberger · Jacek Kabaciński The neolithisation of Pomerania – a critical review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375 Ines M. Grohmann Die Ertebølle- und frühtrichterbecherzeitliche Keramik aus Wangels, Kr. Ostholstein: Ein Beitrag zur Neolithisierung Schleswig-Holsteins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 407

Das Altneolithikum im westlichen Mitteleuropa / The Early Neolithic in western Central Europe Dieter Kaufmann Eilsleben und der Beginn des Neolithikums in Mitteldeutschland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425 Thomas Saile Aspects of neolithisation in the Weser-Harz region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 439 Claus-Joachim Kind Diversity at the transition – a view from the Mesolithic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 449 Sabine Schade-Lindig · Christoph Schade Woher kommt Flomborn? Keramikimporte und Nachahmungen in der bandkeramischen Siedlung Bad Nauheim-Nieder-Mörlen »Auf dem Hempler« . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 461 Tim Kerig Grenzen ziehen: Zur Chronologie regionaler und sozialer Unterschiede im hessischen Altneolithikum . . 475 Christian Meyer · Kurt W. Alt An anthropological perspective of the Early and Middle Neolithic of the Upper Rhine Valley: results of an osteometric study of postcranial skeletal elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 487 Hans-Christoph Strien Mobilität in bandkeramischer Zeit im Spiegel der Fernimporte . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 497 Andreas Zimmermann Migration oder Adaption? Zur Entwicklung vom Mesolithikum zur Bandkeramik im Rheinland . . . . . . 509 Martin Heinen Niederkassel-Uckendorf: Eine bandkeramische Pioniersiedlung im Rheinland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 517

Luc W. S. W. Amkreutz »All quiet on the northwestern front?« An overview and preliminary analysis of the past decade of LBK-research in the Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 535 Philippe Crombé Contact and interaction between early farmers and late hunter-gatherers in Belgium during the 6th and 5th millennium cal BC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 551

Das Altneolithikum im westlichen und südlichen Europa / The Early Neolithic in western and southern Europe Christian Jeunesse · Samuel van Willigen Westmediterranes Frühneolithikum und westliche Linearbandkeramik: Impulse, Interaktionen, Mischkulturen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 569 Birgit Gehlen Neolithic transition processes in Southern Europe: The present state of knowledge and its deficiencies in Northern Italy and Southwestern France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 607

Tagungsprogramm / Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 637

Autoren / List of contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 641

Farbtafeln

Pál Raczky · Pál Sümegi · László Bartosiewicz · Erika Gál · Małgorzata Kaczanowska · Janusz K. Kozłowski · Alexandra Anders

Ecological Barrier versus Mental Marginal Zone? Problems of the Northernmost Körös Culture Settlements in the Great Hungarian Plain With an appendix on the lithic assemblage from Nagykörű Cooperative Orchard

This paper is dedicated to the memory of Andrew Sherratt, a great friend and supporter of Hungarian archaeologists, an outstanding promoter of interdisciplinary thought. In archaeological research, the Körös-Méhtelek Culture of the Great Hungarian Plain and the Starčevo Culture of Transdanubia in Western Hungary have long been considered the two northernmost elements of the cultural complex that introduced early food production in the Balkans1 (Farbtafel 4, 1). In the opinion of Kalicz and Makkay (1976, 22-23), settlements characterised by the Méhtelek-type of assemblages represent a local variety of the Körös Culture in the region of the Kraszna, Szamos, and Túr Rivers, and they suggested the term »Méhtelek Group« for these specific assemblages2. In this work, the northern distribution of Early Neolithic cultures in the Carpathian Basin will be reviewed following the sequence of its research history. This regards the development of theories concerning the northern border of these archaeological cultures. The co-existence of and, in fact, interaction between the first Neolithic cultures of South-East and Central Europe, that is between populations representing the Balkans and local groups respectively, was first modelled on the basis of Hungarian archaeological data3. Beginning in the 1960s, this »transitional territory« has received wider attention, since, based on research by Quitta, the roots of Central European Linear Band Pottery Culture (LBK) have been sought out in our study area namely the northern section of the Carpathian Basin (Quitta 1960). From an archaeological point of view, it has been very important that Sümegi and Kertész (1998, 154158; Kertész / Sümegi 1999, 17-19; 2001, 236-237) explained the distributions of the Körös-Méhtelek and Starčevo Cultures within the Carpathian Basin, at least in part, by agro-ecological factors. The »borderline« defined by previous archaeological research crossed the Carpathian Basin in a diagonal, northeast-southwest direction, largely within the zone represented by Lake Balaton and the foothills of the Northern Hills. The earliest settlements of the Central European LBK and Alföld Linear Band Pottery Culture (Szatmár II-Group) were previously localised in association with and somewhat north of this zone (Kalicz / Makkay 1972a, Abb. 1; 1977 Karte 2; Makkay 2001b, 12 fig. 2-3) (Farbtafel 4, 2). This geographical pattern has encouraged several researchers to hypothesise that the roots of these two variants of LBK lay with the local Mesolithic populations who, supposedly, lived north of the distribution areas of the Körös and Starčevo Cultures4. In these »indigenist« interpretative models, the main emphasis is placed on processes of acculturation. Others prefer a »diffusionist« approach in relation to the occurrence of Linear Band ceramics in the area5. Some new models represent the complexity of these explanatory concepts, trying to accommodate both of the former lines (Gronenborn 1999; 2003; Pinhasi 2003, 40-42). Within the framework of this discussion, it

The Spread of the Neolithic to Central Europe

147

is worth comparing the neolithisation in the southern and northern areas of the Great Hungarian Plain, since this restricted geographical area mirrors historical problems that are essentially similar in Transdanubia (Western Hungary) and the rest of Central Europe (Scharl 2004, 83-90, 94-96). New data from the sites of Nagykörű-Cooperative Orchard6 (Farbtafel 5, 3; 6, 1, 2; fig. 2, 3) and KőtelekHuszársarok (Raczky 1983) show that neolithisation was already under way in the Upper Tisza region, influenced by phenomena from the southeast throughout the first three centuries of the 6th millennium BC, in fact, sooner than previously thought. If the hypothesis that the Körös Culture in this area represented newly arrived communities from more southeasterly regions is accurate, these small farming and pastoralist groups probably found themselves in a zone in which their traditional ways of life had to be maintained in the face of environmental difficulties. Hence, the previously defined »agroecological barrier« has to be reconsidered. In this present study, the term »mental marginal zone« is rather used in a special, secondary sense. Binford (1968) and Flannery (1969; 1973) suggested that agriculture would have been invented in environmentally marginal regions where the need for food was most acute. Importantly, this model minimises the importance of invention and concentrates on the adaptive behaviour of human populations. Evidently, food production reached the Carpathian Basin from beyond its borders during the Early Neolithic, that is to say, it was not invented there (Bökönyi 1984; Bartosiewicz 2005a, 51-52). The local environment, however, differed from the regions where the first animals were domesticated and even from regions colonised earlier in the Balkans. Although the natural habitat within the Carpathian Basin was rich, it was marginal for early sheep farmers from a mental point of view since it contained new elements with which their traditional way of life was not equipped to deal. Thus, they had to modify, »re-invent«, their subsis tence strategies in a new, unpredictable environment. Demand for the meat of previously ignored domestic animals, most notably pig, would have only slowly increased as Körös Culture pastoralists first responded to environmental stresses on their flocks by complementing their traditional meat diet with opportunistically exploited wild resources. However, the quantity of animal food thus obtained seems to have been relatively small and possibly occasional.

Environmental conditions in the Körös Culture »marginal zone« When exploring the aforementioned archaeological problem, one cannot avoid posing the question: What is the meaning of a marginal zone from an ecological point of view? At several levels, a mosaic-like pattern may be observed in the environment of the Carpathian Basin. This pattern is determined by climatic conditions, geographical location, and the geomorphological characteristics of the region (Sümegi 2003; 2004a, 324; 2004b, 337). The mosaic patterning on a macro level, on the scale of hundreds of square kilometres, is related to the fact that three global climatic zones of Köppen (Köppen 1884; Köppen / Geiger 1930-1939) (Cf (= oceanic), BS (= forest steppe), Df (= boreal climatic zone)) overlap here (Farbtafel 5, 1). In addition to these three climatic zones, a sub-Mediterranean influence developed in an irregular fashion from a southern to northern direction. Meanwhile, continental climatic effects declined from east to west. Finally, in Western Hungary (Transdanubia), Atlantic climatic influence may be detected, decreasing from west to east. Climatic regions may extend over thousands of square kilometres. However, these are not homogeneous: they form local (micro level) and regional (mezo level) mosaic patterning in accordance with geomorphological, orographic, and hydrographic features (Farbtafel 5, 2). The mosaic-like regional patterning in the Great Hungarian Plain was created by the formation of neotectonic depressions. These shallow sub-basins, measuring 50-100 km2 each, form the deepest parts of the

148

Raczky et al. · Ecological barrier versus mental marginal zone?

Fig. 1 Loose sediment layers near the surface and neotectonic depressions in the Carpathian Basin.

Great Hungarian Plain and thus defined the courses of rivers (Farbtafel 5, 3). The formation of neotectonic depressions shaped morphological and hydrogeological features in at least two ways: 1. Firstly, depressions caused variability in spatial morphology, thereby affecting hydrological conditions. These latter determine the quality of sediments and soils and thus the composition of vegetation. 2. Secondly, the deepest points of depressions have shifted in space through time. These translocations tend to destroy previously formed surfaces by erosion. Through these two effects, neotectonic depressions influence the quality of loose deposits on the surface of the Great Hungarian Plain, thereby affecting pedological and vegetational conditions (fig. 1). Depressions were formed with varying intensities at various times, encompassing different time intervals. Starting from the river valleys, step-like surfaces developed along the depressions at various altitudes above sea level (fig. 2. 3). The water tables, and thus hydrological properties of these surfaces, vary according to their respective positions. The deepest zones are river valleys and basins, usually covered with Holocene loess. These areas have the most favourable hydrological properties in the Great Hungarian Plain. This fact is of outstanding importance, in an area where present-day annual precipitation varies between 500-550 mm and reaches only 300-350 mm during the vegetation period. In fact, without its network of rivers, fed by precipitation in the Alps and the Carpathians, the Great Hungarian Plain would be a deforested steppe under Holocene climatic conditions. Owing to the asynchronous depressions of sub-basins, river valleys shifted during the different phases of the Quaternary Period. The most significant change took place some twenty-thousand years ago, when the Tisza River, flowing in the Ér Valley, turned north and gradually formed its present day course. One of the


149

Fig. 2 The morphological situation and bore-holes of the Early Neolithic site at Nagykörű Cooperative Orchard. – 1 A large pit of the Körös Culture. – 2 Settlement area of the Körös Culture. – 3 A-A’ = geological cross-section with boreholes.

significant consequences of the development of the present-day Tisza Valley was that earlier, loess covered Pleistocene alluvial formations became isolated as they were not affected by the lateral erosion caused by rivers. These residual surfaces formed island-like fractal structures within the basins, creating the mosaic-like local patterning of the alluvial landscape. Within the context of the environmental background of the KörösMéhtelek Culture, the concept of fractals is used differently from the archaeological applications published in previous case studies by Chapman (2001) and Sherratt (2004). In this paper, the term fractal refers to the mosaic pattern of the environment, repeated on varying orders of magnitude, from climatic zones to local soil formation. Owing to their relatively lower lying water tables, these island-like residual surfaces are distinctly different from their more humid alluvial environment due to their dry, seldom flooded, surfaces (Farbtafel 6, 1). Our data show that the development of both vegetation and soils followed this mosaic pattern characteristic of the landscape. Soils developed under the influence of water in deeper, alluvial areas of the Great Hungarian Plain, while loess plateaus were covered with meadow soils. The island-like elevations situated within the alluvium are covered with alkaline and meadow soils. The soil along their edges, however, was formed under the influence of water (Farbtafel 6, 2). A similar structure, the mosaic pattern, is also repeated on the Great Hungarian Plain, whether the landscape structure is studied at a resolution of several thousand square kilometres or only a few square metres (Farbtafel 6, 3. 4). Although there may be qualitative differences in the environmental details at these various levels of resolution, the fractal structure still is the mathematical parallel with the best descriptive value. Meanwhile, the most significant archaeological question is, whether and how these degrees of mosaic patterning affected the life of Early Neolithic communities that settled in the area where the Körös Culture sites are distributed? Studying more closely the findspots where Körös Culture settlements or parts thereof have been found, an indubitable preference for loess-covered, residual islands in the alluvium may be recognised. Since these areas were not flooded, this single element in the mosaic pattern of the landscape had a disproportion-

150


Fig. 3 The geological cross-section of Nagykörű Cooperative Orchard. – 1 Loess. – 2 Floodplain sediment. – 3 Holocene eutrophic lake sediment. – 4 Wind-blown sand. – 5 Geological cross section shown in fig. 2.

ate influence on settlement strategy. Thus, in a fundamentally dry environment, they could occupy areas in the proximity of live waters, without the settlements being threatened by regular flooding. On the basis of palaeoclimatic reconstructions, it seems evident that at the end of the 7th and the beginning of the 6th millennium cal BC a distinct warm period followed in the Carpathian Basin as well. This must have been best characterised by an increase in solar radiation. When zones in which solar radiation evidently increased (i.e. the sub-Mediterranean climatic influence expanded) are compared with the distribution of Early Neolithic communities, a clear geographical overlap may be observed. It shows that communities that exploited domestic plants and animals (whose wild ancestors, i.e. original gene centres, had been in the Near East) could best utilise sub-Mediterranean zones in river valleys, which thus gained key significance from the viewpoint of early settlement. Meanwhile island-like surfaces in the alluvium also limited the subsistence possibilities of early food producers. Beyond these features that were islands both in a topographic and ecological sense, land surfaces were covered with gallery forests and flooded regularly at least twice a year. That is, the new settlers could predictably utilise only the island-like elevations and levees as scenes of subsistence. Although once spring and early summer floods receded, the drying floodplain offered excellent grazing grounds, only the islands were habitable at the time of high waters, for both humans and livestock.

Animal exploitation in the Körös Culture »marginal zone«: a case study Owing to its northern location within the Körös Culture distribution area, the recently excavated site of Nagykörű is of great importance in testing hypotheses concerning the subsistence of the first farming communities in the Carpathian Basin. The role of animal husbandry in meat provisioning is of special interest at this settlement, located as it is in a »marginal« position vis-à-vis more southerly sites studied from an archaeozoological point of view (Bartosiewicz 2005b). Excavations were limited to a 3 by 3 m, approximately 1.5 m deep test pit that yielded 794 vertebrate remains. Of these, 577 could be assigned to Körös Culture provenances, while 217 came from mixed layers. The composition of this small faunal assemblage


151

Vernacular name cattle sheep goat sheep and/or goat pig dog Domestic mammal total aurochs red deer roe deer wild pig beaver red fox Wild mammal total Bird total (see Table 4) acipenserid pike catfish carp cyprinid fish frog/toad pond tortoise Poikilothermic total Identifiable total (NISP) large ruminant small ruminant fish unid. human Total

Latin name (Bos taurus L. 1758)  (Ovis aries L. 1758)  (Capra hircus L. 1758)  (Caprinae Gray 1852)  (Sus domesticus Erxl. 1777)  (Canis familiaris L. 1758)    (Bos primigenius Boj. 1827)  (Cervus elaphus L. 1758)  (Capreolus capreolus L. 1758)  (Sus scrofa L. 1758)  (Castor fiber L. 1758)  (Vulpes vulpes L. 1758)    (Acipenseridae)  (Esox lucious L. 1758)  (Silurus glanis L. 1758)  (Cyprinus carpio L. 1758)  (Cyprinidae)  (Anura)  (Emys orbicularis L. 1758) 

(Homo sapiens L. 1758)

Körös 75 35 1 302 15 6 434 2 8 9 4 2 1 26 27 1 2 5 5 17 1 7 38 525 20 28 2 2 577

Mixed 28 17 4 93 8   150   2 5     3 10 24     2 2 3   2 9 193 4 16 4 217

Tab. 1 Vertebrate remains from Nagykörű Cooperative Orchard (except for birds).

is summarised in table 1. Bone measurements for both components are listed in table 2, following international standards (von den Driesch 1976). Between the Körös Culture and mixed assemblages, the proportions of various taxa to each other are comparable. Minor differences in composition are not significant in formal statistical terms: all five domesticates of the »Neolithic package« are present. The overwhelming dominance (approximately 95 %) of bovids (including sheep, goats, and cattle) is evident, among domesticates, and almost three quarters of the assemblage under discussion here are made up of sheep and goat (i.e. caprine) remains, species not native to the Carpathian Basin. Thus, their preponderance at Körös Culture sites is an indicator of massive cultural influence from the southeast. Even rare, poorly preserved bones occur within this large, caprine sub-assemblage: five remains of foetal lambs/kids (tab. 3; Prummel 1989) are indicative of a winter/early spring occupation. They may also be looked upon as indicators of environmental stress on sheep: either ewes aborted spontaneously or they had to be culled in spite of their pregnant status. As a well-known example of chaos theory, the reproduction of animal populations may become non-predictable in crisis situations7.

152


GL Cattle radius Sheep axis axis scapula humerus humerus humerus humerus radius radius radius radius radius radius metacarpus metacarpus metacarpus metacarpus femur femur tibia tibia astragalus calcaneus metatarsus metatarsus metatarsus metatarsus metatarsus

                                               

 

metacarpus metatarsus Red deer metacarpus astragalus scapula humerus femur tibia Beaver humerus Red fox scapula radius calcaneus

Dp

  33.9 46.1      

45.2            

30.6  

38.8  

30.2 30.2 31.5 26.0 26.0 24.1 18.1 19.0 20.3 14.2  

                   

16.1 15.3   12.7 13.0 13.0 13.0 16.1 14.6 9.0  

39.2 32.1 35.2 21.8  

16.9 35.0 31.5    

17.9 17.5 17.5 19.8 20.0  

18.6 16.9 18.1 18.7 19.6  

18.7 19.2     64.2

                 

61.0    

13.1 19.1          

45.2 37.1          

        7.0  

                                                               

DD          

Bd          

19.1                                                     12.5

                         

18.2 40.0 26.5

29.1 31.3 22.7  

26.9                    

22.5                    

35.3      

46.1      

14.5 14.6

9.2

                 

18.5                

13.2 17.2                  

45.1 35.6 18.9 27.2      

29.8 31.1 31.0 26.1      

32.3   15.0

   

Dd          

 

    25.0

21.8 36.1

10.5 35.0

SD

  91.1

23.0 46.1

Goat

Bp

10.7  

10.6    

17.3    

Feature   1   2 1 3 4 7 7 7 1 2 3 7 7 7 3 3 7 7 3 4 3 3 7 7 3 13 13 7 7   3 3   16 1 2 2 2 2   7   13 2 2

Tab. 2 Körös Culture mammal bone measurements (mm, von den Driesch 1976).


153

Bone humerus radius metacarpus femur metatarsus

GL

Estimated age, days

47.1 50.0 51.0 53.0 55.0

112 175 185 120 187

Tab. 3 Caprine fetal ages by bone length (mm, Prummel 1989).

Figure 4 reveals that, in spite of its relatively small size, the Nagykörű assemblage is consistent with large (NISP > 1000), archetypal settlements of the Körös Culture (upper right section in fig. 4), with a contribution of domesticates over 90 %. The twelve Körös Culture sites in this graph show a high (R = 0.620, P ≤ 0.032) Spearman rank correlation between the NISP and the percentage of domesticates (Bartosiewicz 2005a). This is indicative of a possible sampling bias in small assemblages, in which even a few wild animal bones make up pro rata greater percentages, thereby making hypotheses concerning the quantitative importance of hunting refutable. Wild mammals contributed to the diet to a far lesser extent. Large game, although represented by but a few fragments each, must have been of some importance. Among small game, the presence of beaver instead of brown hare (Lepus europaeus Pall. 1778) is indicative of a marshy, rather than grassland environment (Bartosiewicz 2005a). Körös Culture bird remains were represented by seven species at this site: great crested grebe, white egret, grey heron, greylag goose, barnacle goose, mallard, and coot. As for the stork bones (Ciconia nigra/C. ciconia), it is rather difficult to tell whether these bone remains derive from the white or the black species of this genus. Another bone fragment originates from a non-identifiable wading bird. One bird bone was not identifiable (Aves indet.). The material of questionable Körös Culture origins contained two additional species: pochard and ferruginous duck (tab. 4). All bird species represent humid habitats such as reed beds, swamps, wet meadows, and floodplain forests. The floating nests of great crested grebe and coot are tied to the vegetation along river banks, while the preferred nesting grounds of greylag goose and ducks are thick reed beds. The nests of grey heron and storks are built in bushes or in high trees (Peterson / Mountfort / Hollom 1977, 48-49). The aforementioned species consume a mixed diet of both plant and animal foods. The latter are dominated by invertebrates, although great crested grebe, white egret, and grey heron also eat quantities of fish. White storks prey predominantly on invertebrates, amphibians, and reptiles, while the diet of black storks is based largely on fish and other small vertebrates (Cramp 1998). As for seasonality, great crested grebe, greylag goose, mallard, pochard, ferruginous duck, and coot may be found in Hungary between February and November. The presence of white egret and grey heron are limited from late March to October. Storks stay here between March-April to August-September. Of the species identified, greylag goose is the only goose species that nests in Hungary: barnacle goose is a rare winter visitor that may occur between September and April (Peterson / Mountfort / Hollom 1977, 53). Eight of the bird bones belonged to nestlings or at least not fully developed individuals. Some of them showed marks of burning and gnawing. Traces of burning were noted on the distal part of humerus from greylag goose, on the distal fragment of ulna from mallard, and on the tibiotarsus from pochard. The proximal end of the coracoid from ferruginous duck was gnawed off. It is also noteworthy that half of the skeletal remains from wading birds (13 of 26 bones) are tarsometatarsi, i.e. represent the most distal segment of the leg. This is just the opposite of what was observed at the Körös Culture site of Ecsegfalva 23, where wing bones overwhelmingly dominated among the remains of wading birds and wood pigeon (Columba palumbus; Pike-Tay et al. 2004, 237-238).

154


Fig. 4 Assemblage size and the contribution of domesticates at Körös Culture sites.

Vernacular name

Latin name

Körös NISP/MNI

Mixed NISP/MNI

Season

great crested grebe

Podiceps cristatus L. 1758

white egret

Egretta alba (L. 1758)

4/2

2/2

March–October

grey heron

6/1

1

black stork/white stork

Ardea cinerea L. 1758 Ciconia nigra (L. 1758)/ C. ciconia (L. 1758)

4/3

4/2

March–October March/April–August/ September

stork-like bird

Ciconiiformes indet.

1

4/?

 

grey-lag goose

Anser anser (L. 1758)

4/1

5/2

February–November

barnacle goose

Branta leucopsis (Bechstein 1803)

mallard

Anas platyrhynchos L. 1758

pochard

1

February–November

1 4/2

February–November

Aythya ferina (L. 1758)

1

February–November

ferruginous duck

Aythya nyroca (Güldenstadt 1770)

1

February–November

coot

Fulica atra L. 1758

 Non-identifiable

Aves indet.

 Total NISP:

3/2

September–April

2/1

February–November

1

2

 

26

22

 

Tab. 4 Bird remains from Nagykörű Cooperative Orchard.

Except for barnacle goose, all identified bird species are well known from Körös Culture sites. Grey heron, greylag goose, mallard, and coot are especially common (Gál 2004, 280-281 tab. 1). A species of the Branta genus was identified only at the Vinča Culture site of Parţa, Romania (Gál 2004, 282-283 tab. 2). Measure-


155

Species

Bone

Podiceps cristatus

ulna

Egretta alba

coracoid

Egretta alba

coracoid

GL

Lm

Bp*

Dp

humerus

Ardea cinerea

coracoid

Ardea cinerea

scapula

Ardea cinerea

carpometacarpus

Ardea cinerea

femur

Ardea cinerea

tibiotarsus

Bd**

Dd***

Feature

3.4

16

62.0

5.3

3

64.4

5.1

7.8

Egretta alba

SC

10.5 58.8 14.0 90.5

1

12.1

16

5.7

16

5.6

4

8.9 15.0

22.0

20.2

9.4

5.4

4

8.8

Ciconia nigra/C. ciconia tarsometatarsus

3

6.0

12.1

13.7

10

7.1

18.4

13.3

2

11.9

25.2

15.8

16

Anser anser

humerus

Anser anser

tibiotarsus

Anser anser

tarsometatarsus

ca. 87.0

Branta leucopsis

carpometacarpus

79.6

Anas platyrhynchos

humerus

Anas platyrhynchos

ulna

4.6

9.8

Aythya cf. ferina

tibiotarsus

3.5

8.5

Fulica atra

humerus

4.4

9.5

5.6

16

Fulica atra

tibiotarsus

4.0

 

 

10

ca. 180.0 22.7 19.5

8.3

21.1

 

 

8.2

16

7.5

2

9.3

10.1

7.4

7

6.6

11.0

 

13

8.2

3 3

Tab. 5 Bird bone measurements (mm, * Dic in scapula, ** Bb and *** BF in coracoid; von den Driesch 1976).

Carp precaudal vertebra proc. pharyngeus proc. pharyngeus

GL

Bp 46.1

   

 

Dp

Str. Unit

Culture

20.1 20.4

7 7 7

mixed mixed mixed

  25.1 19.1

Tab. 6 Fish bone measurements (mm, Morales / Rosenlund 1979).

ments taken on their bones are listed in table 5. It is the variety, rather than quantity, of game and bird remains that is of greatest interest at Nagykörű. This observation, however, should not be generalised without considering the overall Körös Culture context. When compared to other Körös Culture settlements in the Great Hungarian Plain, Nagykörű indeed looks rich in taxonomic terms. In figure 5, the decimal logarithms of the number of mammalian and avian taxa (R = y) are plotted against the decimal logarithms of their respective numbers of identifiable specimens (NISP = x). In the Great Hungarian Plain, the relationship between these two variables may be described by the following, highly significant linear regression equations: Mammals (n = 12): y = 0.120 x + 0.735 (r = 0.925, P ≤ 0.001) (n = 10): y = 0.543 x + 0.148 (r = 0.923, P ≤ 0.001) Birds Relative to its small size, the Nagykörű assemblage includes many mammalian species. Therefore, in figure 5 it falls above the trend line for other Körös Culture sites. It would be erroneous, however, to conclude that hunting played a major role in meat provisioning at this site. The number of bird taxa at Nagykörű largely

156


Fig. 5 Taxonomic richness of birds and mammals at Nagykörű.

corresponds to what would be expected on the basis of assemblage size: as a vertebrate class, however, birds are richer than large mammals, but have fewer skeletal elements. The joint effect of these differences is reflected by their high regression coefficient in the equation. Recently, the same general trend has been reconfirmed by three times larger series of avian (29) and mammalian (35) assemblages from the Neolithic (Bartosiewicz / Gál 2007 tab. 1). Figure 5 shows that people ate all sorts of animals, not only the four, economically important domesticates of the aforementioned »Neolithic package«. Although the assemblage studied here was water-sieved, owing to the small scale of the excavations, the bones of poikilothermic animals number only a few. Of these, the remains of a frog/toad and an unmodified carapace fragment from pond tortoise may originate from natural deposits. In spite of the presence of a small acipenserid fish (possibly sterlet) and pike, the fish diet at this site was dominated by species that prefer slow current with a soft substrate (Bartosiewicz / Bonsall 2004). On the basis of measurements (Morales / Rosenlund 1979), they represent the carp family, including some large carp (tab. 6), and catfish. These may be caught opportunistically, especially during the spring/summer floods (Pike-Tay et al. 2004), which again is consistent with the ad hoc character of hunting and fowling as reflected by the few but taxonomically variable remains from game and bird. In conclusion, vertebrate remains from Nagykörű may be considered paradigmatic for the following reasons: 1. The relatively small assemblage is unusually diverse i.e. includes bones from a great variety of taxa, indicative of ad hoc hunting / fowling / fishing. 2. The presence of bones from beaver, aquatic birds, fish, amphibians, and pond tortoise are indicative of a humid environment, considered unfavourable from the viewpoint of the Neolithic sheep husbandry. 3. In spite of its taxonomic richness and environmental evidence, the assemblage is characterised by the overwhelming dominance of caprine remains (75 % of NISP). In light of the first two points, the third aspect may be considered typical of the Körös Culture: in times of need, animal products of the Balkan type of food producing economy were complemented by oppor tunistic hunting, fowling, and exploiting the richesse of aquatic resources in the marshy, mosaic-like environ ment.


157

158


Archaeology in the Körös Culture »marginal zone« Recently, major academic debates have flared up concerning the interpretation of the aforementioned »agro ecological barrier« (Kertész / Sümegi 1999; 2001; Makkay 2001a; Domboróczki 2005, 5-9). It is important to emphasise here that in comparison with the main distribution area of the Körös Culture in the southern section of the Great Hungarian Plain, its peripheral occurrence along this border area of a unified cultural region must be seen as reflecting a zone fading into isolated bits of a mosaic. The dispersed geographical distribution of Körös Culture settlements along the Tisza River, upstream from the city of Szolnok, is consistent with the mosaic-like natural environment of this area. This multi-faceted environmental background and concomitant cultural variability are firmly supported in Szolnok County by finds from the archaeological sites of Szajol, Tiszapüspöki, Besenyszög, Nagykörű, Kőtelek, and Tiszagyenda (Farbtafel 7, 1). The new Körös Culture settlement at Tiszaszőlős–Domaháza, discovered by Domboróczki (2005, 9-12), has shed entirely new light on the topographic conditions of the northernmost distribution of the Körös Culture. Namely, the presence of this site shows that sporadic settlements of the Körös Culture reached far upstream, along the »green corridor« of the Tisza River Valley. It is likely that they moved as far north as the latitude of the Tokaj source of obsidian (Raczky 1989, 234). Moreover, the site of Tiszabezdéd, in addition to earlier data by Kalicz and Makkay (1972a, 78-79; 1977, 19-20) as well as recent discoveries by Domboróczki (2005, 9 fig. 1) in the environs of Ibrány, show that the population of the Méhtelek–Homorodu de Sus (Báder 1968) variety of the Körös Culture also reached this area along the Tisza River. This possibility has already been hypothesised on the basis of the outstanding richness of obsidian finds at Méhtelek, located in northeast Hungary, some 110 kilometres east of Nyíregyháza, some three kilometres from the point where the present day borders of Hungary, Romania, and the Ukraine meet. It seems logical, therefore, to suppose that it was in the Tokaj area of the Upper Tisza region where people of the Körös Culture from the Great Hungarian Plain and Méhtelek could have interacted with any hypothetical, local Mesolithic population (Farbtafel 7, 1). The timeframe within which the Körös Culture first occurred in the Upper Tisza region is clearly indicated by the most recent 14C-dates from Nagykörű and Tiszaszőlős-Domaháza. They show that already at a very early time, more or less synchronously with the beginning of settlements in the southern section of the Great Hungarian Plain, frontier settlements were established here between 5880 and 5650 cal BC8 as well as 5850 and 5620 cal BC (Domboróczki 2005, 12). This observation is clearly supported by the archetypical, Körös Culture form of animal exploitation practised at the site of Nagykörű. Radiocarbon dates from Méhtelek are indicative of a similarly early occurrence within the 5730-5480 cal BC9 time interval. Micro-ecological variability in the Upper Tisza region has also meant that a range of different environmental conditions characterised this area as well, in spite of the small distances in between sites. The people living in these »marginal« Körös Culture settlements found themselves surrounded by a rich variability of multiple ecotones in the mosaic-like islands, an environment that would have been ideally suited to a flexible, Mesolithic hunter / fisher and gatherer way of life but not one that their socio-cultural traditions had equipped them to efficiently exploit. It is important to emphasise, however, that there are no data whatsoever concerning the presence of a Mesolithic human population in this area. Previously, it was postulated that Mesolithic settlements had been covered with thick alluvial sediments in the area that hindered their

Fig. 6 1-3 Human and sheep/goat representations on storage vessels from the sites of the Körös Culture in the southern part of the Great Hungarian Plain (drawing by M. Koncz). – 4 Human and bull/cow representations on a storage vessel from Košice-Červený rak (earliest Alföld Linear Pottery in eastern Slovakia; after Šiška 1989; drawing by K. Nagy). – 5 »Centaur« figurine from a grave at Polgár-Ferenci-hát (earliest Alföld Linear Pottery-Szatmár II-Group; drawing by K. Nagy, M = 1:2).


159

recovery (e.g. Chapman 1989, 504, footnote 1; Bartosiewicz 1999). Field data as from the site of Jásztelek, however, has not proven the existence of a thick loess cover and suggest that Mesolithic finds may turn up as close to the modern surface as 5-80 cm. Hence, this argument cannot be taken as a general explanation for the remarkable absence of Mesolithic sites (Kertész 1996). Thus, for Körös food producing communities this variable zone must have seemed like a volatile and unpredictable environment, ill-suited to survival strategies developed in the warmer and drier regions of the Balkans. In this zone, the mental template (sensu Kroeber / Richardson 1940) of their world also went through a gradual crisis. This tendency is supported, among others, by the fact that the set of decorations on storage vessels that showed humans, sheep as well as goats in the southern distribution area of the Körös Culture (fig. 6, 1-3) changed. They were replaced by figurines of cattle/bulls and »horns of consecration« at the northern sites of the Körös Culture (Kalicz / Raczky 1982). The survival difficulties faced by people of the Körös Culture and the insufficiency of its traditionally exploited domestic resources in the face of new environmental circumstances is reflected in the rich variety of fish, bird, and wild animal bones recovered from this period. The increased dependence on a broad spectrum of animal food resources is supported, among other things, by the new excavation results from Nagykörű and is in accordance with the conclusions drawn from the large site of Endrőd 119 (Bökönyi 1992) and the Anglo-Hungarian project at Ecsegfalva 23 (Pike-Tay et al. 2004). Increasing dependence on aquatic resources seems also to be reflected in the choice of sites for settlement: the frontier settlements of the Körös Culture under discussion here were established at places where rivers met still waters. Such aquatic ecotones are especially favourable from the viewpoint of exploiting a greater variety of mussel and fish from either type of aquatic habitats. Meanwhile, 14C results from Nagykörű also show that special subsistence tactics within this zone, possibly considered »marginal« from the Körös cultural point of view, differ from those in the southern section of the Great Hungarian Plain. It seems also unlikely that the complementary role of hunting, fowling, fishing, and gathering was rooted in some sort of a Mesolithic tradition, since no such interactions could be detected in the Upper Tisza region. Two factors may be considered important in assessing the transformation of the Balkan type food production economy in this »marginal zone«, at least marginal from the point of view of the subsistence traditions the people of the Körös Culture originally brought with them from the drier plains of South-East Europe. Agricultural practices, previously pursued directly in connection with river banks, were gradually replaced by cultivation areas that had, in general, favourable hydrological qualities. Such areas included loess-covered, small island-like or peninsular habitats in the alluvial system in the northern section of the Great Hungarian Plain. Evidence for this has been provided by the environmental historical analysis of Tiszapüspöki-Karancs part (Sümegi 2003; 2004b). Parallel with this phenomenon, the dominance of sheep and goat remains declined as cattle and pigs, better suited to the local habitat, gradually became more significant. These trends became increasingly important as the agricultural economy of the subsequent Alföld Linear Pottery Culture became more firmly established. In this new way of life, the importance of domesticates was retained, while the significance of complementary food resources declined. It is suggested here, that the »experiment« (adaptation), that resulted in the emergence of subsistence strategies characteristic of the Alföld Linear Pottery Culture in the Upper Tisza region had its economic as well as material cultural foundations in the local variant of the Körös Culture. Probably as a result of the new way of life, promising an easier livelihood, settlements of the Alföld Linear Pottery Culture (Szatmár II-Group) spread explosively (Kozłowski / Nowak / Vizdal 2003, 140-141; Kovács 2007) (Farbtafel 7, 2). In the north, they reached Eastern Slovakia (Košice-Červený Rak, Slavkovce etc.), where they are labelled as the Kopčany group (Kaczanowska / Kozłowski / Nowak 1997, 271-273), and the foothills of the Carpathi-

160


ans (Zastavne-Mala Hora). In the south they expanded towards the neighbourhood of Szolnok (Kőtelek) and towards the east to the border with Transylvania (Ciumeşti, Pişcolt). The Tokaj Hill and its environs are located in a, more or less, focal position within this distribution area of almost 20,000 km2. This cannot be a coincidence and may be considered as yet another piece of evidence that the meeting between the two varieties of the Körös Culture (from the Great Hungarian Plain and Méhtelek) as well as the network mediated through obsidian and other lithic raw materials played a powerful role in generating cultural change (Kaczanowska / Kozłowski 2003, 231-233). This hypothesis seems to be supported by the analysis of the modest set of stone artefacts recovered from Nagykörű (see appendix). A new radiocarbon date from the Early Alföld Linear Pottery Culture (Szatmár II-Group) site of Kőtelek falls between 5720-5530 cal BC10. The aforementioned 14C dates from Nagykörű and Méhtelek also support chronological conclusions drawn by Domboróczki (2003, 12-20; 2005, 12) on the basis of the settlements of Füzesabony-Gubakút and Tiszaszőlős-Domaháza. These dates show that the material culture marked by Szatmár II-Group type ceramics and the associated change in the way of life took place within a time period of 100-150 years in the area of the Upper Tisza region. When all this is seen in parallel with conclusions drawn by Petrasch (2001) concerning the demography of the Central European LBK, it may be considered rather unlikely that the Upper Tisza region could have been so intensively populated by a local Mesolithic population alone, especially in such a short time span. One important feature of the material culture of the northernmost group of the Körös Culture is the lithic industry, best known from Méhtelek (Starnini 2001) and Zastavne-Mala Hora. This industry differs from lithic industries known from the assemblages of Körös and Starčevo sites located in the southern section of the Carpathian Basin. The macroblade technology, based on North-Balkan and Banat flints, was replaced by medium size blades and flakes, produced from the local raw materials (limnoquartzites, radiolarites, etc.) and from obsidian. These changes not only reflect adaptation to newly accessible, different raw materials, but also result from changes in social organisation: specialised flint knapping and the production of highly curated blade tools from extralocal rocks was replaced by a supply of raw materials as well as production of blanks and tools on a household level. As a result of these changes, different discard patterns may be observed: in the south, blades and tools had been rarely discarded and occurred without corresponding waste and cores. Meanwhile, a mass discard of waste, cores, blanks, and (partially expedient) tools – resulting from complete in-site operational sequences – are frequently encountered at the northernmost sites. The dissolution of raw material supply networks typical for Starčevo settlements and the southern sites of the Körös Culture, a new approach to lithic production on the individual household level, new discard patterns, and a new style of tool production mark a period of changes. These changes are an expression of a new mentality of the population living at the margin of the Körös zone. Lastly, they triggered techno-morphological changes in lithic production which fully evolved in the LBK Complex. Characteristics of the Körös Culture from both the Great Hungarian Plain and the Méhtelek region may be traced in the archaeological imprint of the new »ideology« associated with the emerging LBK. In addition to a human-shaped relief on the side of a storage vessel from Košice-Červený Rak (fig. 6, 4), the heads of a bull and a cow replace previously popular Körös images of sheep and/or goat (Šiška 1989, pl. 4, 5; 7, 8-10). A small bovine figurine was also recovered from one of the Szatmár II-Group graves at the site of PolgárFerenci-hát (fig. 6, 5)11. A similar clay figurine, recently reconfirmed as depicting a bovine (Bartosiewicz 2005b, fig. 3) came to light in Transdanubia, Western Hungary, at the site of Szentgyörgyvölgy-Pityerdomb, dated to the Early LBK. Likewise, it represents a shift related to a change in subsistence strategies (Bánffy 2004, 276-284). In general, a decisive role has been attributed to mental changes in the emergence of agriculture by Cauvin


161

(1994, 95-102), who actually sees these changes at the root of the transformation of life ways in that time period. All these factors, together with the »centaur«-type representations and bull head models from Füzesa bony-Gubakút (Domboróczki 1997 fig. 4. 5. 7 etc.) and Mezőkövesd-Mocsolyás (Kalicz / Koós 1997 fig. 15, 17, 19) point to the central role of the relationship between humans and bulls played out in this new cultural context, often expressed in their symbolic fusion. The increasing importance of the bull motif as well as of the »horns of consecration« has already been observed at peripheral settlements in the Körös Culture area (Kalicz / Raczky 1982). In addition, the increased economic and cognitive role of pigs may lay behind the form of a pig-shaped vessel from Tiszacsege (Kalicz / Makkay 1977 Taf. 4, 8a-b). At the same time, anthropomorphic representations found on Szatmár II-Group sites (Nagy 1998, 126 fig. 36) evidently follow the Méhtelek type mental template of schematised clay figurines (Kalicz / Makkay 1976 Taf. 8, 1-8; Hansen 2000 Abb. 13, 3-4; 15). This is clearly illustrated by recent finds from PolgárKirály-érpart, Mezőkövesd-Mocsolyás, and Mezőkeresztes-Nagy Tubulyka (Kalicz / Koós 1997 fig. 13, 1-5; 14; Nagy 1998 pl. 36, 2a-c. 3a-c; Koós 2003 fig. 2, 1; 4, 1) among others. These examples support the hypothesis that the Alföld Linear Pottery Culture represents a shift, not only in the cognitive attitude towards domestic animals but also to a change in their more abstract meanings. In the new pictorial compositions, Körös Culture elements from both the Great Hungarian Plain and the Méhtelek region merged into a new synthesis that solidified in a special canonised form by 5600-5500 cal BC (Raczky / Anders 2003, 162).

Conclusions As mentioned in the previous chapters, the mosaic-like flood plain area of the Upper Tisza region between Szolnok and Méhtelek functioned as a »mental marginal zone« within the context of the expansion by the Körös Culture in the Great Hungarian Plain. Three dimensions of this transition could be recognised: 1. Ecological: A multi-level, mosaic-like natural environment, the dimension that had set the scene for adaptation for its Early Neolithic inhabitants. 2. Cognitive: Substantial modifications in the subsistence strategies of the Körös Culture were eventually induced precisely by this variability in local environmental conditions. All these factors set the scene for an inevitable natural »experiment« in which, in addition to the package of Neolithic domesticates, the exploitation of wild animal resources also played a role in the diet. 3. Mental: In cognitive terms, this resulted in a new general mentality that both reflected and supported the material aspects of economic survival. As a result of the »experiment«, however, it was cattle and domestic pig that gained in significance, and the framework for a new form of subsistence stabilised slowly after several hundred years. Fundamentally, it must have been the interaction between the natural environment and this internal mechanism that lead to the formation and establishment of the Alföld Linear Pottery Culture based on the Körös and Méhtelek Cultures. In their study of stone tools Kaczanowska, Kozłowski, and Nowak (1997, 267-273; Kaczanowska / Kozłowski 2003, 231-233) arrived at the same conclusion, having not found convincing evidence that a local Mesolithic population played a formative role in the emergence of new cultures in the Carpathian Basin. The new study of Domboróczki (2005) has summarised the same archaeological model for the neolithisation of the Upper Tisza region on the basis of his excavations at Tiszaszőlős-Domaháza. It is noteworthy that the Körös Culture was only the first of numerous eastern pastoralist and »steppe« cultures that literally got bogged down in the marshy environment of the Carpathian Basin. Peoples during the

162


Migration Period and Early Middle Ages were forced to go through similar transformations in their animal husbandry (Bartosiewicz 2003). Complementing subsistence agriculture with opportunistic hunting, fowling, fishing and gathering (represented by a great variety but relatively small number12 of non-domestic animal remains) may have been improvisations by a community under stress, whose traditional sheep and goat herding became increasingly difficult under a frequently changing climate in a fragmented, mosaic-like environment. This may have depressed the reproduction rates of caprines, leading to a direct exploitation of the environment through opportunistic hunting, fowling, and fishing. It is, however, rather the great relative variety of non-domestic animals that is of interest, highlighting the probably haphazard nature of this activity. Millennia later, at the wake of the Roman Empire, marginalised communities along the Pannonian limes responded in an analogous manner to dwindling central control, tangibly illustrating that such changes in subsistence practices can be equally triggered by environmental and socio-political factors (Bartosiewicz 1990-1991). It seems that during the first third of the 6th millennium BC an adaptation zone developed at the northern frontier of the sub-Mediterranean climatic region in the centre of the Carpathian Basin, i.e. the Great Hungarian Plain. This resulted from the mosaic-like sub-division of the physical space. Since the mosaic pattern was manifested at several levels, an environmental border zone developed at the time of the Early Neolithic. From the viewpoint of newly arriving Neolithic settlers from the southeast, this formed an agroecological barrier: When in addition to the variability of physical space concomitant social and mental reactions are also considered, this area may be seen as a conjugative interface. This term is suggested here to indicate a zone that was not simply environmentally different but had also continuously provoked economic and mental adaptation on the part of food producing communities arriving from the Balkans. Their previous farming expertise was ill-suited to the new environment and resulted in long term adaptive changes stimulated by a new habitat. This trend is supported by the results of archaeozoological analyses, which show that the Körös Culture, conservatively insisted on a form of animal husbandry dominated by caprines that had developed in the Balkans, even in the face of environmental factors that were less than ideal for these domestic species. For the time being, the relationship between »native« Mesolithic populations and hypothetical settlers from South-East Europe is poorly understood: Mesolithic sites are under-represented by orders of magnitude in the Hungarian archaeological record. In this paper, the problem is admittedly treated from the Neolithic »majority« point of view. The recent discovery, identification, and radiocarbon dating of early Körös Culture settlements in the Upper Tisza region do not simply expand the known distribution area of neolithisation northwards. They are also indicative of a more rapid expansion than previously estimated. This may explain why early farmers had a hard time adapting to this humid and varied, mosaic-like environment. Patterned »adequate« responses established through previous experience had developed in South-East Europe and helped with survival and cognitive orientation even in the Carpathian Basin. Earlier perceptions and reactions should have offered practical solutions in the new environment. This body of knowledge, however, became irrelevant in many ways, and a »mental marginal zone« emerged in what would have been an optimal physical environment in other circumstances. This eventually forced the intellectual and practical re-evaluation of earlier »adequate« responses and led to the acquisition of new answers by experiment. This contradiction between the potentials of the new ecological setting and deeply embedded cultural traditions which developed in different environmental circumstances in the past created an obvious internal tension within their established mental template of how the world worked. As a result of this internal, mental disharmony, a revolutionary re-evaluation of traditional values and structures fol-


163

lowed, leading to the, at first slow and then increasingly rapid, formation of new mental templates. In short, the environment of the Carpathian Basin as the northern periphery of the Balkans stimulated new internal responses that lead to a synthesis reflected in the new material culture of the Alföld Linear Pottery people.

Acknowledgements The Hungarian National Research Fund contributed to archaeozoological research by László Bartosiewicz (Grant No. OTKA T047228) and by Erika Gál (Grant No. OTKA F048818). Erika Gál’s study was also funded by the Bolyai János Research Fellowship of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. In addition, the European Commission contributed to the study of lithic assemblages and archaeometric analysis within the framework of the FEPRE project. Kind help by Alice M. Choyke is also acknowledged here, who made constructive comments on the original version of this text and corrected its English. The German abstract was translated by Julia Gerken.

Annotations 1) See Kutzián (1944), Milojčić (1950), Kalicz (1965), Makkay (1965; 1969; 1974; 1982; 2001a), Trogmayer (1968), Kalicz / Makkay (1972a; 1972b; 1976; 1977, 20), Raczky (1989, 233-234), and Kalicz (1990; 2000). 2) Makkay (1982, 18-19 and footnote 19; 2001a, 62) was probably correct in positing that it is along the Ér River, where sites characterised by the assemblage of Méhtelek type are in connection with settlements in the Berettyó River valley that represent the Körös Culture, best known in the southern section of the Great Hungarian Plain. Nevertheless, it is also evident that settlements of the Méhtelek cultural entity were also in connection with the settlement zone of the Criş Culture along the courses of the Kraszna and Szamos Rivers (Raczky 1983, 189; Maxim 1999 fig. 27; Ignat 2001). In our opinion, this complex system of relationships is represented most clearly by the geographical distribution of schematic clay figurines of the Méhtelek type (Hansen 2000 Abb. 16). 3) Specifically Kalicz (1965, 28. 34), Trogmayer (1968, 18-19), Kalicz / Makkay (1972a, 77; 1976, 20-23; 1977, 18-19), Raczky (1983, 161, 189). 4) Kalicz 1965, 28; Kalicz / Makkay 1977, 18-19; Pavúk 1980, 7985; Modderman 1988, 128-130; Kertész / Sümegi 1999; 2001; Makkay 1982, 68-95; 2001a, 61-69; Dennell 1983, 156-163; Barker 1985, 84-111, 135-160; Zvelebil 1986, 183-186; Tillmann 1993; Chapman 1994, 141-143; Whittle 1996, 150-152; 1998; Zvelebil / Lillie 2000, 57-67; Bánffy 2004, 353-391. 5) Childe 1950, 83-105; Quitta 1960; 1971; Clark 1965; Tringham 1971, 68-70; Ammerman / Cavalli-Sforza 1973; 1979; Renfrew 1987, 152-159; 2002; Lüning 1988, 29-37; Kaczanowska / Kozłowski 2003, 231-233; Lichardus-Itten / Lichardus 2003; Bentley / Chikhi / Price 2003; Bellwood 2005, 67-84; Davison et al. 2006, 641-652.

164

6) First data about the site: Raczky 1980. 7) See http://www.babylon5.hu/tech/kaosz-main.html 8) Nagykörű: ∑ OxCal v.3.10 68,2 % probability: VERA-3052: 6755±40 BP, VERA-3474: 6890±35 BP, VERA-3476: 7065±35 BP, VERA-3540: 6850±35, Poz-26325: 6860±40, Poz-26327: 6940±40, Poz-26328: 6970±40. 9) ∑ OxCal v.3.10 68,2 % probability: BLN-1331: 6835±60 BP, BLN-1332: 6665±60 BP, GR-6892: 6625±60 BP. 10) ∑ OxCal v.3.10 68,2 % probability: BLN-1677: 6630±60 BP, VERA-3478: 6780±35 BP. 11) Unpublished excavation along the M3 motorway in the years 2001 and 2002. 12) At many older excavations in Hungary, in former Yugoslavia and Romania, it cannot be established whether fish and bird remains are missing because they were not exploited or whether they were simply not found as there was neither flotation nor screening at the site. 13) Compare cores with two or three platforms from trench 16 and 40 from Endrőd 119 (Starnini / Szakmány 1998 figs. 3, 1 and 3, 4). 14) The authors wish to express their gratitude to Peter Stadler (Naturhistorisches Museum, Vienna) for enabling us to examine the lithic collection from Brunn II, stored at the Naturhistorisches Museum in Vienna. 15) The authors express their thanks to Katalin T. Biró (Hungarian National Museum, Budapest) for placing the materials from Gellénháza at their disposal.


Appendix Description of lithic finds A. Feature 1 – stratum 3: 1. Proximal fragment of a limnoquartzite blade; an unprepared butt, core angle of 95 degrees (fig. 7, 1). B. Feature 2 – stratum 4: 1. Small obsidian flake with lateral cortex. In the proximal part two Clactonian inverse notches; in the distal part a fracture in the shape of a Clactonian obverse notch. The dexter lateral edge has fine, uniseriate, semi steep retouch (fig. 7, 2). – stratum 7: 1. Triangular flake detached from a discoid core, made from grey-whitish hornstone of unknown origin. The butt is formed by a single-blow; 90 degrees angle (fig. 7, 3). 2. Fragment of the lower grinding stone mortar from igneous rock (probably rhyolite). One surface used for crushing mineral dyes is polished (fig. 8, 1). 3. Fragment of the lower grinding stone mortar made of fine crystalline shale. One surface is polished slightly concave (fig. 8, 2). 4. Fragment of a sandstone pebble. On one side it has two, slightly concave, polished surfaces; it probably served as a grinding stone for polishing weakly convex surfaces up to 2,0 cm wide (fig. 8, 3). – stratum 16: 1. Single-platform, residual blade core with the flaking surfaces on two narrow walls of a flat thermal fragment of banded limnoquartzite. The platform was carefully prepared. The core was probably used as a hammer stone and, possibly, transversally broken during use (fig. 7, 4). 2. Partially cortical flake detached from an initial, double-platform core from limnoquartzite, burnt. The butt is cortical the coring angle is 100 degrees (fig. 7, 5). C. Feature 8 – humic layer: 1. Strongly exhausted single-platform blade core, with prepared butt; the back and the distal part are cortical. The core is made from yellowish limnoquartzite with black, brownish and white bands (fig. 7, 6). D. Loosely distributed finds (inv. no. 148): 1. Multiplatform blade-flake residual core made from Transdanubian radiolarite. Its orientation was changed four times. The specimen has five platforms; initially this piece was a single-platform blade core from which – at an angle of 90 degrees – short blades were detached (starting from the primary platform). Subsequently, on both sides, on the broader walls, flakes were detached by bidirectional method. The former flaking surfaces were used as platforms (fig. 7, 7). 2. Mesial-distal fragment of a blade from Transdanubian radiolarite. Now the piece looks like an arched backed blade, however, the sequence of retouches and the usage do not confirm such a typological diagnosis. At first, the blade was used as a sickle insert: traces of high gloss can be seen in the central part of the blade; high-gloss must have extended up to the dexter edge. When the blade functioned as a sickle insert there was one (or two – one of them in the proximal part?) convex truncation. Only later, was the distal retouch of the truncation extended onto the dexter side shaping a kind of convex blunted back (fig. 7, 8).


165

Fig. 7 Nagykörű Cooperative Orchard. – 1-8 chipped stone artefacts.

2

1

3

4

5

7

8 6

The taxonomic position of lithic artefacts We should stress that the lithic artefacts from Nagykörű differ from the standards of the macroblade industry typical of the Starčevo and partly of the Körös Culture, especially the implements made of Balkan flint, even those found in the Upper Tisza Basin, e.g. from Méhtelek-Nádas (Starnini 1993; 2001). It should, however, be added that within the Körös Culture a relatively limited discard of macroblade artefacts is recorded at settlement sites. In all likelihood, such artefacts were among the most intensively curated tools and were discarded only after they were used up almost completely. Similar observations can also be made at Early Neolithic sites in the Northern Balkans (Gatsov 1993), where the general frequency of chipped artefacts is low.

166


Fig. 8 Nagykörű Cooperative Orchard. – 1-3 ground stone implements.

At Körös Culture sites in the Middle Tisza Basin and in the lower section of the Körös River (e.g. at Endrőd 119 and Szarvas 23), the frequency of chipped stone artefacts is low as well. But, at the same time, in addition to occasional macroblade artefacts brought to a site, a more advanced blade core reduction was recorded. Its orientation changed many times, yielding fine blade and flake blanks13. These specimens are made of limnoquartzite, similar to that from Nagykörű. At Endrőd 119, fragments of fine obsidian bladelets also occur, e.g. at house 29 (Starnini / Szakmány 1998 fig. 2, 16), indicating that this material was supplied as far as the Körös River outlet to the Tisza. Therefore, the presence of the small obsidian flakes at Nagykörű is not surprising.


167

A highly distinctive feature of the Starčevo and Körös macroblade industry is the presence of tools with marginal retouches that also dominate in the Eastern Linearband Complex. Regretfully, retouched tools are absent at Nagykörű, therefore this morphological feature cannot be used for comparisons. In spite of their uncertain stratigraphic position, the presence of two artefacts made from Transdanubian radiolarite is of considerable significance. Although Transdanubian radiolarite occurs in Mesolithic materials from Moravia, and its presence is believed to be the evidence of contacts between Early Neolithic communities and the hypothetical local Mesolithic (Bánffy 2004; Kozłowski 2005). It occurs in large quantities at the site of the Transdanubian variant of the Starčevo Culture, e.g. at Szentgyörgyvölgy-Pityerdomb (Biró 2001), as well as at the earliest LBK sites in Lower Austria, e.g. at Brunn II. At Nagykörű the presence of Transdanubian radiolarite can, possibly, be the proof of the contemporaneity of the finds from Nagykörű and of Late Starčevo in Transdanubia. Synchronicity with the Early LBK is less likely if we take into consideration the fact that the coring technology used at Nagykörű is essentially different from the technology of the earliest LBK from Brunn II14. Thus, residual, single-platform blade cores from Nagykörű still have rejuvenated platforms in this phase. As a result, the coring angle is slightly obtuse (> 90 degrees). Such an effect can be achieved when a punch is used to detach blades. The cores from Brunn II – rarely single-platform in the residual phase – had platforms rejuvenated by a scar from a flake detached in such a way that the angle was acute or right. A hard hammer was used for flake detachment. The change of orientation at Brunn II was always at a right angle on separate faces of a core, whereas at Nagykörű the change of orientation may have been the reason for flaking surfaces to intersect. Unfortunately, the state of publication of lithic materials from Szentgyörgyvölgy-Pityerdomb (Biró 2001; Bánffy 2004) does not permit reconstruction of chaînes operatoires; this is a flake-microblade industry, made primarily on Transdanubian radiolarite of Szentgál type. A little more can be said about the core reduction system at another Transdanubian site Gelleháza, which contains both Starčevo and Early LBK ceramic style elements, and where Szentgál type radiolarite (alongside with Haskút type) is also present. At these sites, the relatively small blade cores display a change in orientation at an angle of 90 degrees in such a way that the previous flaking surface served as a platform. Moreover, small single-platform residual blade cores occur with platforms rejuvenated at an acute angle by single detachments15. Analysing the stone tool made of Transdanubian radiolarite from Nagykörű gives the impression that it is an arched backed piece that could be regarded as a Mesolithic element within Epigravettian tradition. It is only a closer examination of the complex history of this artefact that shows that this is a transformed truncationsickle insert, a typical Neolithic form. Moreover, it should be remembered that backed pieces that indeed occur in the earliest LBK at Brunn II, possibly as an element of the Pre-Neolithic tradition, are either small and broad segments, or straight-backed pieces with steep inverse retouch, or slender blade specimens with an angulated, blunted back.

168


References Ammerman / Cavalli-Sforza 1973: A. J. Ammerman / L. L. CavalliSforza, A population model for the diffusion of early farming in Europe. In: C. Renfrew (ed.), The Explanation of Culture Change: Models in Prehistory. Proceedings of a meeting of the Research Seminar in Archaeology and Related Subjects held at the University of Sheffield (London 1973) 343-357.

Biró 2001: K. T. Biró, Lithic materials from the Early Neolithic in Hungary. In: R. Kertész / J. Makkay (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 11 (Budapest 2001) 89-100.

1979: A. J. Ammerman / L. L. Cavalli-Sforza, The wave of advance model for the spread of early farming. In: C. Renfrew / K. L. Cooke (eds.), Transformations: Mathematical Approaches to Culture Change (New York 1979) 275-294.

Bökönyi 1984: S. Bökönyi, Die Herkunft bzw. Herausbildung der Haustierfauna Südosteuropas und ihre Verbindungen mit Südwestasien. In: H. Schwabedissen (ed.), Die Anfänge des Neolithikums vom Orient bis Nordeuropa IX. Der Beginn der Haus tierhaltung in der »Alten Welt«. Fundamenta B 3 (Köln, Wien 1984) 24-43.

Báder 1968: T. Báder, Despre figurinele antropomorfe în cadrul culturii Criş (Beiträge zur Kenntnis anthropomorpher Figurinen aus der Criş-Kultur). Acta Musei Napocensis 5, 1968, 381-388. Bánffy 2004: E. Bánffy, The 6th Millennium BC Boundary in Western Transdanubia and its Role in the Central European Neolithic Transition (The Szentgyörgyvölgy-Pityerdomb Settlement). Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 15 (Budapest 2004). Barker 1985: G. Barker, Prehistoric Farming in Europe (Cambridge 1985). Bartosiewicz 1990-1991: L. Bartosiewicz, Animal bones as indicators of continuity at Roman provincial sites. Antaeus 19-20, 1990-1991, 103-124. 1999: L. Bartosiewicz, The emergence of holocene faunas in the Carpathian Basin: A review. In: N. Benecke (ed.), The Holocene History of the European Vertebrate Fauna. Archäologie in Eura sien 6 (Rahden/Westf. 1999) 73-90. 2003: L. Bartosiewicz, A millennium of migrations: Protohistoric mobile pastoralism in Hungary. In: F. Wayne King / Ch. M. Porter (eds.), Zooarchaeology: Papers to Honor Elizabeth S. Wing. Bulletin of the Florida Museum of Natural History 44, 2003, 101130. 2005a: L. Bartosiewicz, Plain talk: animals, environment and culture in the Neolithic of the Carpathian Basin and adjacent areas. In: D. W. Bailey / A. Whittle / V. Cummings (eds.), (Un)Settling the Neolithic (Oxford 2005) 51-63.

1992: S. Bökönyi (ed.), Cultural and Landscape Changes in South-East Hungary 1. Reports on the Gyomaendrőd Project. Archaeolingua 1 (Budapest 1992). Cauvin 1994: J. Cauvin, Naissance des divinités. Naissance de l’agriculture. La Révolution des symboles au Néolithique (Paris 1994). Chapman 1989: J. C. Chapman, Demographic trends in neothermal South-East Europe. In: C. Bonsall (ed.), The Mesolithic in Europe. Papers presented at the Third International Symposium Edinburgh 1985 (Edinburgh 1989) 500-515. 1994: J. C. Chapman, The origins of farming in South East Europe. Préhistoire Européenne 6, 1994, 133-156. 2001: J. C. Chapman, The fractality of personal relations in the Mesolithic and Neolithic of South East Europe. In: R. Kertész / J. Makkay (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 11 (Budapest 2001) 145-165. Childe 1950: V. G. Childe, Prehistoric Migrations in Europe (Oslo 1950). Clark 1965: J. G. D. Clark, Radiocarbon dating and the expansion of farming culture from the Near East over Europe. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society. New Series 31, 1965, 58-73. Cramp 1998: S. Cramp (ed.), The complete birds of the Western Palearctic on CD-ROM. (Oxford 1998).

2005b: L. Bartosiewicz, All quiet on the western front? Reviewer’s comments on the thesis »Szentgyörgyvölgy-Pityerdomb: The 6th millennium BC boundary in western Transdanubia and its role in the Central European Neolithic transition« submitted by Eszter Bánffy. Antaeus 28, 2005, 357-364.

Davison et al. 2006: K. Davison / P. M. Dolukhanov / G. R. Sarson / A. Shukurov, The role of waterways in the spread of the Neolithic. Journal of Archaeological Science 33, 2006, 641-652.

Bartosiewicz / Bonsall 2004: L. Bartosiewicz / C. Bonsall, Prehistoric fishing along the Danube. Antaeus 27, 2004, 253-272.

Dennell 1983: R. Dennell, European Economic Prehistory. A New Approach (London 1983).

Bartosiewicz / Gál 2007: L. Bartosiewicz / E. Gál, Sample size and taxonomic richness in mammalian and avian bone assemblages from archaeological sites. Archeometriai Műhely 1, 2007, 3744.

Domboróczki 1997: L. Domboróczki, Füzesabony-Gubakút. Újkőkori falu a Kr. e. VI. évezredből (Füzesabony-Gubakút. Neo lithic village from the 6th millennium B.C.). In: P. Raczky / T. Kovács / A. Anders (eds.), Utak a múltba: az M3-as autópálya régészeti leletmentései (»Paths into the Past«. Rescue Excavations on the M3 Motorway) (Budapest 1997) 19-27.

Bellwood 2005: P. Bellwood, First Farmers: The Origins of Agricultural Societies (Oxford 2005). Bentley / Chikhi / Price 2003: R. A. Bentley / L. Chikhi / T. D. Price, The Neolithic transition in Europe: comparing broad scale genetic and local scale isotopic evidence. Antiquity 77, 2003, 63-66. Binford 1968: L. R. Binford, Post-Pleistocene adaptations. In: L. R. Binford / S. R. Binford (eds.), New Perspectives in Archaeology (Chicago 1968) 313-341.

2003: L. Domboróczki, Radiocarbon data from Neolithic archaeological sites in Heves County (North-Eastern Hungary). Agria 39, 2003, 5-71. 2005: L. Domboróczki, A Körös-kultúra északi elterjedési határának problematikája a Tiszaszőlős-Domaháza-pusztán végzett ásatás eredményeinek fényében. Archeometriai Műhely 2, 2005, 5-15.


169

von den Driesch 1976: A. von den Driesch, A Guide to the Measurement of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. Peabody Museum Bulletin 1 (Cambridge, MA 1976).

1972b: N. Kalicz / J. Makkay, Südliche Einflüsse im frühen und mittleren Neolithikum Transdanubiens. Alba Regia 12, 1971 (1972) 93-105.

Flannery 1969: K. V. Flannery, Origins and ecological effects of early domestication in Iran and the Near East. In: P. J. Ucko / G. W. Dimbleby (eds.), The Domestication and Exploitation of Plants and Animals (London 1969) 73-100.

1976: N. Kalicz / J. Makkay, Frühneolithische Siedlung in Méh telek-Nádas (Vorbericht). Mitteilungen des Archäologischen Instituts der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 6, 1976, 13-24.

1973: K. V. Flannery, The origins of agriculture. Annual Review of Anthropology 2, 1973, 271-310.

1977: N. Kalicz / J. Makkay, Die Linienbandkeramik in der Großen Ungarischen Tiefebene. Studia Archaeologica 7 (Budapest 1977).

Gál 2004: E. Gál, The Neolithic avifauna of Hungary within the context of the Carpathian Basin. Antaeus 27, 2004, 273-286. Gatsov 1993: I. Gatsov, Neolithic chipped stone industries in Western Bulgaria (Krakow 1993). Gronenborn 1999: D. Gronenborn, A variation on a basic theme: the transition to farming in southern Central Europe. Journal of World Prehistory 13, 1999, 123-210. 2003: D. Gronenborn, Migration, acculturation and culture change in western temperate Eurasia, 6500-5000 cal B.C. In: M. Budja (ed.), 10th Neolithic Studies. Documenta Praehistorica 30 (Ljubljana 2003) 79-91. Hansen 2000: S. Hansen, Die Plastik der Jungstein- und Kupferzeit in Ostungarn. Altertum 46, 2000, 97-132. Ignat 2001: D. Ignat, The Early Neolithic in north-west of Romania. In: F. Draşovean (ed.), Festschrift für Gheorghe Lazarovici zum 60. Geburtstag. Bibliotheca Historica et Archaeologica Banatica 30 (Timişoara 2001) 69-89. Kaczanowska / Kozłowski 2003: M. Kaczanowska / J. K. Kozłowski, Origins of the Linear Pottery complex and the Neolithic transition in Central Europe. In: A. J. Ammerman / P. Biagi (eds.), The Widening Harvest. The Neolithic Transition in Europe: Looking Back, Looking Forward. Proceedings of a conference held in Venice, Italy, Oct. 29-31, 1998. Colloquia and Conference Papers 6 (Boston 2003) 227-248. Kaczanowska / Kozłowski / Nowak 1997: M. Kaczanowska / J. K. Kozłowski / M. Nowak, Conclusions. In: J. K. Kozłowski (ed.), The Early Linear Pottery Culture in Eastern Slovakia (Kraków 1997) 267-275. Kalicz 1965: N. Kalicz, Siedlungsgeschichtliche Probleme der Körösund Theiss-Kultur. Acta Antiqua et Archaeologica (Szeged) 8, 1965, 27-40. 1990: N. Kalicz, Frühneolithische Siedlungsfunde aus Südwestungarn. Quellenanalyse zur Geschichte der Starčevo-Kultur. Inventaria Praehistorica Hungariae 4 (Budapest 1990). 2000: N. Kalicz, Unterscheidungsmerkmale zwischen der Körösund der Starčevo-Kultur in Ungarn. In: St. Hiller / V. Nikolov (eds.), Karanovo III. Beiträge zum Neolithikum in Südosteuropa (Wien 2000) 295-309. Kalicz / Koós 1997: N. Kalicz / J. Koós, Mezőkövesd-Mocso lyás. Újkőkori telep és temetkezések a Kr. e. VI. évezredből (Mezőkövesd-Mocsolyás. Neolithic settlement and graves from the 6th millennium B. C.). In: P. Raczky / T. Kovács / A. Anders (eds.), »Utak a múltba«. Az M3-as autópálya régészeti leletmentései (»Paths into the Past«. Rescue Excavations on the M3 Motorway) (Budapest 1997) 28-33. Kalicz / Makkay 1972a: N. Kalicz / J. Makkay, Probleme des frühen Neolithikums der nördlichen Tiefebene. Alba Regia 12, 1971 (1972) 77-92.

170

Kalicz / Raczky 1982: N. Kalicz / P. Raczky, Siedlung der Körös-Kultur in Szolnok-Szanda (Vorbericht). Mitteilungen des Archäologischen Instituts der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 10/11, 1980/1981 (1982) 13-24. Kertész 1996: R. Kertész, The Mesolithic in the Great Hungarian Plain: a survey of the evidence. In: L. Tálas (ed.), At the Fringes of Three Worlds: Hunter-Gatherers and Farmers in the Middle Tisza Valley (Szolnok 1996) 5-34. Kertész / Sümegi 1999: R. Kertész / P. Sümegi, Teóriák, kritika és egy modell: miért állt meg a Körös–Starčevo kultúra terjedése a Kárpát-medence centrumában? (Theories, critiques and a odel: Why did the expansion of the Körös–Starčevo Culture m stop in the centre of the Carpathian Basin?) Tisicum 11, 1999, 9-23. 2001: R. Kertész / P. Sümegi, Theories, critiques and a model: Why did the expansion of the Körös–Starčevo Culture stop in the centre of the Carpathian Basin? In: R. Kertész / J. Makkay (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 11 (Budapest 2001) 225-246. Köppen 1884: W. Köppen, Die Wärmezonen der Erde, nach der Dauer der heissen, gemässigten und kalten Zeit und nach der Wirkung der Wärme auf die organische Welt betrachtet. Meteo rologische Zeitschrift 1884, 215-226. Köppen / Geiger 1930-1939: W. Köppen / R. Geiger, Handbuch der Klimatologie in fünf Bänden (Berlin 1930-1939). Koós 2003: J. Koós, Further data on Middle Neolithic clay pottery in Eastern Hungary. In: E. Jerem / P. Raczky (eds.), Morgenrot der Kulturen. Frühe Etappen der Menschheitsgeschichte in Mittelund Südosteuropa. Festschrift für Nándor Kalicz zum 75. Geburtstag. Archaeolingua 15 (Budapest 2003) 145-153. Kovács 2007: K. Kovács, A tiszaszőlős-aszóparti középső neolitikus település legkorábbi időszakának vizsgálata a kronológiai és a kulturális kapcsolatok tükrében (The earliest occupation period of the Middle Neolithic settlement at Tiszaszőlős-Aszópart in the light of its chronological and cultural connections). Ősrégészeti Levelek 8-9, 2007, 19-38. Kozłowski 2005: J. K. Kozłowski, Remarks on the Mesolithic in the northern part of the Carpathian Basin. In: E. Gál / I. Juhász / P. Sümegi (eds.), Environmental Archaeology in North-Eastern Hungary. Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 19 (Budapest 2005) 175-186. Kozłowski / Nowak / Vizdal 2003: J. K. Kozłowski / M. Nowak / M. Vizdal, A settlement of the Early Eastern Linear Pottery culture at Moravany (Eastern Slovakia) within the context of the Neolithi zation of the Upper Tisza Basin. In: E. Jerem / P. Raczky (eds.), Morgenrot der Kulturen. Frühe Etappen der Menschheitsgeschichte in Mittel- und Südosteuropa. Festschrift für Nándor


Kalicz zum 75. Geburtstag. Archaeolingua 15 (Budapest 2003) 127-143.

Peterson / Mountfort / Hollom 1977: R. T. Peterson / G. Mountfort / P. A. D. Hollom, Európa madarai (Budapest 1977).

Kroeber / Richardson 1940: A. L. Kroeber / J. Richardson, Three centuries of women’s dress fashions: a quantitative analysis. Anthropological Records 5, 1940, 111-153.

Petrasch 2001: J. Petrasch, »Seid fruchtbar und mehret euch und füllet die Erde und machet sie euch untertan«: Überlegungen zur demographischen Situation der bandkeramischen Landnahme. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 31, 2001, 13-25.

Kutzián 1944: I. Kutzián, A Körös kultúra (The Körös culture). Disser tationes Pannonicae ex Instituto Numismatico et Archaeologico Universitatis de Petro Pázmány Nominatae Budapestinensis Provenientes. Series 2, 23 (Budapest 1944). Lichardus-Itten / Lichardus 2003: M. Lichardus-Itten / J. Lichardus, Strukturelle Grundlagen zum Verständnis der Neolithisierungs prozesse in Südost- und Mitteleuropa. In: E. Jerem / P. Raczky (eds.), Morgenrot der Kulturen. Frühe Etappen der Menschheitsgeschichte in Mittel- und Südosteuropa. Festschrift für Nándor Kalicz zum 75. Geburtstag. Archaeolingua 15 (Budapest 2003) 61-81. Lüning 1988: J. Lüning, Frühe Bauern in Mitteleuropa im 6. und 5. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentral museums Mainz 35, 1988, 27-93. Makkay 1965: J. Makkay, Die wichtigsten Fragen der KörösStarčevo-Periode. Acta Antiqua et Archaeologica (Szeged) 8, 1965, 3-18. 1969: J. Makkay, Zur Geschichte der Erforschung der KörösStarčevo-Kultur und einiger ihrer wichtigsten Probleme. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 21, 1969, 13-31. 1974: J. Makkay, »Das frühe Neolithikum auf der Otzaki Magula« und die Körös-Starčevo-Kultur. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 26, 1974, 131-154. 1982: J. Makkay, A magyarországi neolitikum kutatásának új eredményei: Az időrend és a népi azonosítás kérdései (Budapest 1982). 2001a: J. Makkay, A Jászság-határ és az indoeurópai őstörténet: régészeti tények és nyelvtörténeti vonatkozásaik (The Jászság border and the Indoeuropean prehistory. Archaeological realities and their linguistic interpretations). Tisicum 12, 2001, 57-78. 2001b: J. Makkay, Neolithic Prelude to the Indo-Europeanization of Italy. An Old Theory in a New Perspective (Budapest 2001). Maxim 1999: Z. Maxim, Neo-eneoliticul din Transilvania. Date arheologice şi matematico-statistice. Bibliotheca Musei Napocensis 19 (Cluj-Napoca 1999). Milojčić 1950: V. Milojčić, Körös–Starčevo–Vinča. In: G. Behrens / J. Werner (eds.), Reinecke Festschrift zum 75. Geburtstag von Paul Reinecke am 25. September 1947 (Mainz 1950) 108-118. Modderman 1988: P. J. R. Modderman, The Linear Pottery Culture: Diversity in Uniformity. Berichten van de Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek 38, 1988, 63-139. Morales / Rosenlund 1979: A. Morales / K. Rosenlund, Fish Bone Measurements. An Attempt to Standardize the Measuring of Fish Bones from Archaeological Sites (Copenhagen 1979). Nagy 1998: E. Gy. Nagy, Az alföldi vonaldíszes kerámia kultúrájának kialakulása (Die Herausbildung der Alfölder Linearbandkeramik I-II). A Debreceni Déri Múzeum Évkönyve 1995-1996 (1998) 53150. Pavúk 1980: J. Pavúk, Ältere Linearkeramik in der Slowakei. Slo venská Archeológia 28, 1980, 7-90.

Pike-Tay et al. 2004: A. Pike-Tay / L. Bartosiewicz / E. Gál / A. Whittle, Body part representation and seasonality: sheep/goat, bird and fish remains from Early Neolithic Ecsegfalva 23, SE Hungary. Journal of Taphonomy 2, 2004, 221-246. Pinhasi 2003: R. Pinhasi, A new model for the spread of the first farmers in Europe. In: M. Budja (ed.), 10th Neolithic Studies. Documenta Praehistorica 30 (Ljubljana 2003) 1-47. Prummel 1989: W. Prummel, Appendix to atlas for the identification of foetal skeletal elements of cattle, horse, sheep and pig. Archaeozoologia 3, 1989, 71-78. Quitta 1960: H. Quitta, Zur Frage der ältesten Bandkeramik in Mitteleuropa. Prähistorische Zeitschrift 38, 1960, 1-38. 153188. 1971: H. Quitta, Der Balkan als Mittler zwischen Vorderem Orient und Europa. In: F. Schlette (ed.), Evolution und Revolution im Alten Orient und in Europa. Das Neolithikum als historische Erscheinung (Berlin 1971) 38-63. Raczky 1980: P. Raczky, A Körös-kultúra újabb figurális ábrázolásai a Közép-Tiszavidékről és történeti összefüggéseik (New figural representations of the Körös culture from the middle Tisza Region and their historical connexions). Szolnok Megyei Múzeumi Évkönyv 1979-1980, 1980, 5-33. 1983: P. Raczky, A korai neolitikumból a középső neolitikumba való átmenet kérdései a Közép- és Felső-Tiszavidéken (Questions of transition between the Early and Middle Neolithic in the Middle and Upper Tisza Region). Archaeologiai Értesítő 110, 1983, 161-194. 1989: P. Raczky, Chronological framework of the Early and Middle Neolithic in the Tisza Region. In: S. Bökönyi (ed.), Neolithic of Southeastern Europe and its Near Eastern Connections. Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 2 (Budapest 1989) 233-251. Raczky / Anders 2003: P. Raczky / A. Anders, The internal relations of the Alföld Linear Pottery culture in Hungary and the characteristics of human representation. In: E. Jerem / P. Raczky (eds.), Morgenrot der Kulturen. Frühe Etappen der Menschheitsgeschichte in Mittel- und Südosteuropa. Festschrift für Nándor Kalicz zum 75. Geburtstag. Archaeolingua 15 (Budapest 2003) 155-182. Renfrew 1987: C. Renfrew, Archaeology and Language. The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins (London 1987). 2002: C. Renfrew, ›The emerging synthesis‹: the archaeogenetics of farming/language dispersals and other spread zones. In: P. Bellwood / C. Renfrew (eds.), Examining the Farming/Language Dispersal Hypothesis (Cambridge 2002) 3-16. Scharl 2004: S. Scharl, Die Neolithisierung Europas. Ausgewählte Modelle und Hypothesen. Würzburger Arbeiten zur Prähistori schen Archäologie 2 (Rahden/Westf. 2004). Sherratt 2004: A. Sherratt, Fractal farmers: patterns of Neolithic ori gin and dispersal. In: J. Cherry / Ch. Scarre / St. Shennan (eds.), Explaining Social Change: Studies in Honour of Colin Renfrew (Exeter 2004) 53-63.


171

Šiška 1989: S. Šiška, Kultúra s východnou lineárnou keramikou na Slovensku (Die Kultur mit östlicher Linearkeramik in der Slo wakei) (Bratislava 1989).

2004b: P. Sümegi, Findings of geoarchaeological and environmental historical investigations at the Körös site of TiszapüspökiKarancspart Háromág. Antaeus 27, 2004, 307-341.

Starnini 1993: E. Starnini, Typological and technological analyses of the Körös Culture chipped, polished and ground stone assemblages from Méhtelek-Nádas (North-Eastern Hungary). Atti della Società per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia 8, 1993 (1994) 29-96.

Sümegi / Kertész 1998: P. Sümegi / R. Kertész, A Kárpát-medence őskörnyezeti sajátosságai – egy ökológiai csapda az újkőkorban? Jászkunság 44, 1998, 144-158.

2001: E. Starnini, The Mesolithic/Neolithic transition in Hungary: the lithic perspective. In: R. Kertész / J. Makkay (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 11 (Budapest 2001) 395-404. Starnini / Szakmány 1998: E. Starnini / G. Szakmány, The lithic industry of the Neolithic sites of Szarvas and Endrőd (South-Eastern Hungary): techno-typological and archaeometrical aspects. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 50, 1998, 279-342. Sümegi 2003: P. Sümegi, Early Neolithic man and riparian environment in the Carpathian Basin. In: E. Jerem / P. Raczky (eds.), Morgenrot der Kulturen. Frühe Etappen der Menschheitsgeschichte in Mittel- und Südosteuropa. Festschrift für Nándor Kalicz zum 75. Geburtstag. Archaeolingua 15 (Budapest 2003) 53-60. 2004a: P. Sümegi, The results of paleoenvironmental reconstructions and comparative geoarcheological analysis for the examined area. In: P. Sümegi / S. Gulyás (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 (Budapest 2004) 301-348.

172

Tillmann 1993: A. Tillmann, Kontinuität oder Diskontinuität? Zur Frage einer bandkeramischen Landnahme im südlichen Mitteleuropa. Archäologische Informationen. Mitteilungen zur Urund Frühgeschichte 16, 1993, 157-187. Tringham 1971: R. Tringham, Hunters, Fishers and Farmers of Eastern Europe 6000-3000 BC (London 1971). Trogmayer 1968: O. Trogmayer, Die Hauptfragen des Neolithikums der ungarischen Südtiefebene. A Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve 1968, 11-19. Whittle 1996: A. Whittle, Europe in the Neolithic. The Creation of New Worlds (Cambridge 1996). 1998: A. Whittle, Fish, faces and fingers: presences and symbolic identities in the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in the Carpathian basin. In: M. Budja (ed.), 5th Neolithic Studies. Documenta Praehistorica 25 (Ljubljana 1998) 133-150. Zvelebil 1986: M. Zvelebil, Mesolithic societies and the transition to farming: problems of time, scale and organisation. In: M. Zvelebil (ed.), Hunters in Transition. Mesolithic Societies of Temperate Eurasia and their Transition to Farming (Cambridge 1986) 167-188. Zvelebil / Lillie 2000: M. Zvelebil / M. Lillie, Transition to agriculture in eastern Europe. In: T. D. Price (ed.), Europe’s First Farmers (Cambridge 2000) 57-92.


Zusammenfassung / Abstract / Résumé Agrarisch-ökologische Barriere versus mentale marginale Zone? Probleme der nördlichsten Siedlungen der Körös-Kultur in der Großen Ungarischen Tiefebene Die Neolithisierung in der Großen Ungarischen Tiefebene wurde bislang auf zwei gegensätzliche Traditionen zurückgeführt: Eine balkanische, vertreten durch die frühneolithische Körös-Kultur im Süden, und eine einheimische, nämliche die mesolithische Kultur im Norden, aus der sich möglicherweise die Alfölder Bandkeramik entwickelte. Die Unterschiede zwischen den Kulturgütern dieser beiden Gruppen lassen sich auf verschiedene Umfelder zurückführen, was man allgemein als »agrarisch-ökologische Barriere« bezeichnete. Jedoch wurden jüngst immer mehr Fundplätze der Körös-Kultur nördlich ihres Verbreitungsgebietes entdeckt. Neue Radiokarbondaten (AMS) weisen nicht nur auf eine zügige Ausbreitung der Körös-Kultur hin, sondern möglicherweise auch auf einen Umweltdeterminismus in früheren Interpretationen. In diesem Artikel wird der Ausdruck »mentale marginale Zone« benutzt, um hervorzuheben, dass das reiche und variable, sumpfige, natürliche Umfeld wahrscheinlich nicht ideal für die Schafhaltung des Balkans war, was aber auch auf kulturelle und traditionelle Gründe zurückzuführen ist. Eine schneller als bisher angenommene ökonomische Anpassung wäre erforderlich gewesen. Der geistige Wandel lässt sich sowohl in der Verzierung neolithischer Keramik als auch in parallelen wirtschaftlichen Veränderungen, wie der Nutzung von Tierresourcen und der Verbreitung lithischer Rohmaterialien, feststellen. Ecological barrier versus mental marginal zone? Problems of the northernmost Körös Culture settlements in the Great Hungarian Plain Conventionally, neolithisation in the Great Hungarian Plain has been interpreted by contrasting an external, Balkanic, tradition represented by the Early Neolithic Körös Culture in the south and the Mesolithic antecedents of the Alföld Linear Pottery Culture in the north. Differences in the material culture between this latter and the Körös Culture coincide with environmental differences represented by the so-called »agroecological barrier«. However, an increasing number of Körös Culture sites have recently been discovered north of the previously known distribution area. New AMS dates indicate not only a rapid expansion, but show also that previous interpretations were influenced by environmental determinism. In this paper, the term »mental marginal zone« is introduced to emphasise, that the rich, mosaic-like, marshy natural environment was possibly less than ideal for the Balkan type sheep husbandry based economy due to complex cultural, rather than purely ecological reasons. An economic adaptation, faster than previously presumed, would have been required. The shift in mentality may also be traced in Neolithic pottery, especially decorative motifs as well as parallel changes in the exploitation of animal resources and the circulation of lithic raw materials. Barrière écologique versus zone marginale mentale? La problématique des sites d’habitat de la culture de Körös à l’extrémité nord de la Grande Plaine Hongroise Traditionnellement, la néolithisation de la Grande Plaine Hongroise a été interprétée en opposant une tradition exogène, balkanique, représentée par la culture Néolithique ancien de Körös dans le sud et des origines mésolithiques du Rubané de l’Alföld dans le nord. Les différences dans la culture matérielle entre cette dernière et la culture de Körös coïncident avec des différences environnementales représentées par la «barrière agro-écologique». Or, au nord de l’aire de répartition connue, un nombre croissant de sites appartenant à la culture de Körös a été mis au jour récemment. Les nouvelles datations AMS indiquent non seulement une expansion rapide, mais elles mettent aussi en évidence que les interprétations précédentes étaient influencées par un déterminisme environnemental. Dans la présente contribution, le terme de «zone marginale mentale» a été introduit pour mettre l’accent sur le fait que l’environnement naturel riche, disposé en mosaïque et de type marécageux était probablement tout sauf l’idéal pour pratiquer une économie de type balkanique fondée sur l’élevage des moutons. Par conséquent, cette expansion obéissait à des raisons complexes d’ordre culturel plutôt qu’exclusivement écologique. Une adaptation économique, plus rapide que supposée à l’origine, a probablement été indispensable. Le changement des mentalités peut être mis en évidence également par le biais de la céramique néolithique et plus particulièrement par les motifs décoratifs au même titre que par les changements parallèles concernant l’exploitation des ressources animales et la circulation des matières premières lithiques. (traduit de l’anglais par Karoline Mazurié de Keroualin)


173

Farbtafel 4

1

2 1 Geographical distribution of Early Neolithic cultures in the Carpathian Basin (after Kalicz / Makkay 1977). – Geographical determination of the »Central European-Balkanic Agroecological Barrier« (after Sümegi / Kertész 1998). – 2 Geographical distribution of the earliest phase of the Central European and Alföld Linear Pottery (Szatmár II-Group) as well as related cultures in the Carpathian Basin. – Northern borderoftheKörös-Starčevo-MéhtelekculturesintheEarlyNeolithic.

Farbtafel 5

1

2

3.1

3.2

3.3 1 Climatic regions of the Carpathian Basin. – 2 Vegetation units of the Carpathian Basin. – 3 Geomorphological situation of the Early Neolithic Körös site atNagykörűinthedigitalfieldmapand3Ddigitalfieldmap.–1TheregionanalysedinthedigitalfieldmapoftheGreatHungarianPlain.–2TheKörös CulturesiteatNagykörűinthedigitalfieldmap.–3TheKörösCulturesiteatNagykörűvalleyinthe3Ddigitalfieldmap.

Farbtafel 6

1

2

3

4 1Base-rocktypesaroundaKörösCulturesiteatNagykörűCooperativeOrchard.–1Körössettlementontheloesscoveredsandysurface.–2Typicalloess covered sandy surface (residual ridges). – 3 Infusion and typical loess covered alluvial fan remains. – 4 Inactive alluvial plain with palaeochannel, levees, backswamp. – 2ReconstructedEarlyNeolithicsoiltypesaroundtheKörösCulturesiteatNagykörűCooperativeOrchard.–1KörösCulturesettlement on the black soil. – 2 Black soil. – 3 Black soil with hydromorphic effect. – 4 Hydromorphic soil. – 5 Ancient oxbow lake. – 3 Reconstructed Early Neolithic palaeovegetationaroundaKörösCulturesiteatNagykörűCooperativeOrchard.–1KörösCulturesettlement.–2Steppevegetation.–3Foreststeppe vegetation. – 4 Oak-ash-elm hardwood gallery forest vegetation. – 5. Elm (Ulmus). – 6. Ash (Fraxinus). – 7. Oak (Quercus). – 4 The fractal microscopic structure.

Farbtafel 7 1 Meeting zone of the Körös Culture and the Méhtelek Group on the line of the Tisza, and the most important sites mentioned in the text. 1 Szolnok-Szanda. 2Szajol-Felsőföld. 3 Tiszapüspöki-Karancspart. 4 Tiszagyenda-Garahalom. 5 Besenyszög-Szórópuszta. 6 Nagykörü-Tsz. Gyümölcsös Cooperative Orchard. 7Kőtelek-Huszársarok. 8Tiszaszőlős-Domaháza-puszta. 9Túrkeve-Csörgő. 10 Ecsegfalva 23. 11 Furta-Csátó. 12BerettyóújfaluHulladéktároló. 13 Szentpéterszeg-Körtvélyes. 14Fughıu(Ro). 15SuplacudeBarčau(Ro). 16Zăuan(Ro). 17 Homorodu de Sus (Ro). 18 Nagyecsed-Péterzug. 19 Méhtelek-Nádas. 20Zastavne-Mala-Hora(Ukr). 21 Tiszabezdéd-Servápa. 22 Ibrány. Geographical distribution of Early Neolithic cultures in the Carpathian Basin after Kalicz / Makkay 1977.

2 The most important sites of the earliest Alföld Linear Pottery (SzatmárII)sitesintheUpper Tisza region. 1Kőtelek-Huszársarok. 2 Ebes-Vörös Csillag Tsz. Agyagbánya. 3Tiszaszőlős-Aszópart. 4 Tiszacsege-Homokbánya. 5Pişcolţ(Ro). 6Ciumeşti(Ro). 7 Tiszavalk-Négyes. 8 Füzesabony-Gubakút. 9Mezőkövesd-Mocsolyás. 10 Polgár-Király-érpart. 11 Polgár-Ferenci-hát. 12 Tiszalúc-Sarkadpuszta. 13Novajidrány. 14Košice-Červenỳ rak (Slo). 15Kenézlő-Bájihomok. 16 Rétközberencs-Paromdomb. 17Zastavne-MalaHora(Ukr). 18Rivne(Ukr). 19 Slavkovce (Slo). 20 Moravany (Slo). Geographical distribution of Early Neolithic cultures in the Carpathian Basin after Kalicz / Makkay 1977.

NEUERSCHEINUNGEN M. Street · N. Barton · Th. Terberger (eds)

Humans, Environment and Chronology of the Late Glacial of the North European Plain Proceedings of Workshop 14 (Commission XXXII) of the 15th U.I.S.P.P. Congress, Lisbon, September 2006

RGZM – Tagungen Band 6 (2009) 208 S. mit 65 sw. u. 4 farbigen Abb. ISBN 978-3-88467-143-6 48,– €

The volume »Humans, Environment and Chronology of the Late Glacial of the North European Plain« assembles papers presented during a workshop for the 15th Congress of the »Union International des Sciences Préhistoriques et Protohistoriques« held in Lisbon in September 2006. The workshop was organised under the remit of U.I.S.P.P. Commission XXXII which focuses on the »The Final Palaeolithic of the Great European Plain«, and the present volume continues the series of conference proceedings that have been published at regular intervals during the past decade. This most recent contribution underlines the geographical spread and chronological depth of research into this topic, with papers ranging from those on the British Isles to the eastern Baltic and from the Paris Basin to southern Scandinavia, and covering a period of time extending from the late Magdalenian to the early Mesolithic.

Thomas Zimmermann

Die ältesten kupferzeitlichen Bestattungen mit Dolchbeigabe Archäologische Untersuchungen in ausgewählten Modellregionen Alteuropas

Monographien des RGZM Band 71 (2007) 179 S., 70 Abb. ISBN 978-3-88467-114-6 55,– €

In vorgeschichtlicher Zeit nimmt der Dolch eine hervorgehobene Stellung innerhalb der Nahkampfwaffen ein, deren älteste datierbare Vorformen in Vorderasien bis in das 9. Jahrtausend v.Chr. zurückreichen. Ab der zweiten Hälfte des 3. Jahrtausends v.Chr. spielt der Dolch schließlich im Rahmen der endneolithisch/kupferzeitlichen »Glockenbecherepoche« (Mitte 3. Jahrtausend v.Chr.) im Vorfeld der »klassischen« Frühbronzezeit (spätes 3. und frühes 2. Jahrtausend v.Chr.) eine zentrale Rolle beim Grabritus. Diese Studie erfasst und analysiert geschlossene Einzelgrabbefunde Mitteleuropas mit Silex- oder Metalldolchbeigabe des 3. Jahrtausends v.Chr. Um sich dem Problemkomplex umfänglich zu nähern, werden auch die frühesten Belege zweischneidiger Stichwaffen Ost- und Südosteuropas, Westkleinasiens sowie dem prädynastischen Ägypten in ihrem grabrituellen Umfeld mit berücksichtigt. Neben der Diskussion chronologischer Aspekte dieser Bewaffnungssitte steht die Frage nach der Genese und Verbreitung formaler und technologischer Traditionen der Dolche im Zentrum. Dies führt zu sozialgeschichtlichen Überlegungen, inwiefern der Dolch generell als statusbildendes Zubehör verstanden werden darf.

Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, Mainz Ernst-Ludwig-Platz 2 · 55116 Mainz · Tel.: 0 61 31 / 91 24-0 · Fax: 0 61 31 / 91 24-199 E-Mail: [email protected] · Internet: www.rgzm.de

NEUERSCHEINUNGEN Markus Egg · Konrad Spindler †

Kleidung und Ausrüstung der Gletschermumie aus den Ötztaler Alpen Mit der Entdeckung des Mannes im Eis 1991 wurde die Geschichte der Archäologie um eine bemerkenswerte Episode reicher. Selten gelang es, eine derart große Forschergemeinschaft weltweit zu bündeln, um den Fundkomplex zu ergründen. Noch 18 Jahre später beschäftigen sich Medizin, Natur- und Geisteswissenschaft mit dem Schicksal eines Mannes, der vor 5300 Jahren in den Ötztaler Alpen einen gewaltsamen Tod erlitten hat. Auch das archäologische Programm lässt noch viele Wünsche offen. So gesehen ist die Edition des vorliegenden Bands von Markus Egg und Konrad Spindler, der die umfassende Vorlage der Ausrüstung und Kleidung beinhaltet, eine ungemein wichtige und vertiefende Ergänzung zu den bisher getroffenen archäologischen Aussagen. Monographien des RGZM Band 77 (2009) 262 S. mit 153 z.T. farbigen Abb., 22 Farbtaf., 12 Beil. ISBN 978-3-88467-125-2 90,– €

Markus Egg · Dieter Quast

Aufstieg und Untergang – Zwischenbilanz des Forschungsschwerpunktes Eliten Seit einigen Jahren besteht am RGZM der Forschungsschwerpunkt »Eliten«. Hier wird besonders das Phänomen der Prunkgräber untersucht. In einer Zwischenbilanz werden nun vor allem die Bereiche der Metallzeiten und des frühen Mittelalters vorgelegt. Die Studien erlauben, Entwicklungen aufzuzeigen und somit die Frage nach dem »Aufstieg und Untergang« zu diskutieren. Es zeigt sich dabei ein facettenreiches Bild, doch werden auch »Konstanten« erkennbar. Sie deuten an, dass Macht schon in vor- und frühgeschichtlichen Gesellschaften auf vier wesentlichen Säulen ruhte: einer ökonomischen, sozialen, religiösen und militärischen.

Monographien des RGZM Band 82 (2009) 245 S., 108 z.T. farbige Abb. ISBN 978-3-88467-137-5 90,– €

Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, Mainz Ernst-Ludwig-Platz 2 · 55116 Mainz · Tel.: 0 61 31 / 91 24-0 · Fax: 0 61 31 / 91 24-199 E-Mail: [email protected] · Internet: www.rgzm.de