You are on page 1of 20

uDc

930.85

(4-12)

YU ISSN

0350-7653

ACADEMIE SERBE DES SCIENCES ET DES ARTS INSTITUT DES ETUDES BALKANIQUES

BALCANICA
xxilI

i,

. THE NEOLITHIC OF THE GREAT HUNGARIAN PLAIN

PL Raczkg

AND THE VINA coMPLx(tvBw ARCHAEoLoGICAL EVIDENCES FOR THE RELATIONS)

BELGRADE
1992

UDC: 903(439 + 49'1.11)'634' Original Scholarly Work

PlRACZKY

Archaelogical Institute of the Philosophical Faculry Budapest

THE NEOLITHIC OF THE GREAT HUNGARIAN PLAIN AND THE VINA COMPLEX
NEW ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCES FOR THE RELATIONS
Abstract.

'

- The Great Hungarian Plain has always been closely connected to the prehistoric development of Southeast Europe because of its geographic-climatic haracteristics. These connections were especially well expressed during the Neolithic when several cultural phenomena of the territory display obvious Southern

origins. Th new archaeological finds of the Tisza region hint at the Partial contemporaneity of the Krs culture, the Alfld Linear Pottery and the Vina A. These results offer a possibility for the rethinking of the "Proto-Vinca" problem. Important evidences about the contacts extending into deeper spheres are the sacrificial pits from the Hungarian Plain (sites of Tiszaug-Vasutlloms and TiszaigarHomokbnya) in which traces of Vina cultural phenomena may be detectedThe diffusion of the Tisza and Herply culture tells and their geographical distribution, suggest essential cultural links with the relevant settlements in Transylvania and the Banat. The material results of the Tisza and the Vina exchange networks and the strong connections of the two cultural entities have been described by several authors. The Vina import wares from the site of csd-Kovsha|om enrich the earlier picture.

The Great Hungarian Plain has always been closely connected to the prehistoric development of Southeast Europe because of its geographicclimatic characteristics. These connections were especially well expressed during the Neolithic when several cultural phenomena of the territory display obvious Southern origins. At the same time, these very features often define the Northernmost zone of Balkan-Aegean cultural influence. For this reason, the Neolithic of the Great Hungarian Plain and its contacts have lain at the centre of interest of international archaeological research.

148

P. Raczkv

Pana 3. g. and Dvavnya_Atyaszeg.l3 This theory supposed an internal development within the Krs culture of the Tisza region, similar to the neighbouring Starevo complex, culminating in the Vina culture.1a This problem was later related to that of the Szatmr group located in the upper reaches of the Tisza.15 It has turned out that the Szatmr I group was related to the Transylvanian Krs_ Cris culture, especiallywith regard to the Mhtelek finds.1 On the other hand, the Szatmr II group is actually the earliest phase of the Alfld Linear Pottery, (ALP) as charaterized by idols with triangular faces culturally typical of the ALp, special face_pots with bow-like engraved decoration, Vina A-type bone soopns, and especially by incised and painted decoration.lT The same incised ceramic

Balkans, knowing the results of the excavations at Vina.lo These pioneering works drew attention, as early as the beginning of the century, to the definitive role of the Vina culture in the Neolithic of the Hungarian Plain' Another fact recognized early on was the relationship betrveen the material of the Krs culture and that of the site of Starevo.ll Parallel to these results emerged the problem of the interpretation of Vina forms in the artifact assemblages of the Kros culture, forwhich the publication of the excavation a the site of szentivn VIII provided the baiis.12 Later, J. Makkay and o. Trogmayer isolated the Proto_Vina phase or type group inside the Krs culture' deduced from analogies to finds from Maroslele-

Holste,5 J. Banner _ M. P rducz,6 Y . Miloji,7 F. Schachermeyr,8 and I. Kutzin,g who dealt firstwith the archaeological contacts between the Tisza region and the

It was among others, G. Childe,t F. Tompa,2 Banner,3 S. Gallus,a F.

5 Holste, 1939,6.

t a't* e, 1927, 79-81 ; chitde, t929, 26-35; chitde, 1930, z5s-262. 2 Tompa, Lg34-35,4u'7. 3 Bonn"., 1936,21;Banner, lg37, 32. a callus, 1938,525-530.
Mlo;rie,
49, 7

Banner-Prd ucz, L946-1,948, l7 4L

8 Schachermey r,1953,273-2'78; Schachermeyr , Ig53-54, 15-24. 9 Kutzin, Lg4u7, 99-L48.


l() Vasi' 1932-36, passim' 1r Fewkes-Goldman-Ehrich, L933, 48-51; Banner, L935, IZI-LZS; Tompa, 1934_35, 46; Kutzin, 19 444'1, 99_702.
12 13

9-8I,

91'_92; Ml|oji,, 1950, 108-1 18.

Banner, 1936,27I;

1964,67-86.
la

Banner-Prd rcz, 7946-1948, 23-30, 354l;Bognr-Kutzi n, 1966, 263-264. Makkay, 1965, 10; Makkay, 798?,26-3I and nore 28. with further literature; Trogmayer,

Srejovi, 1963, 7; Brukne r,1968,93. ls Kalicz-Makkay,1972,77-92;Kalicz-Makkay,1917, 1983, 108-109; Makkay, 1982, 42-54.
16

L8-29;Kalicz,1980,97-L03;Katicz,

note 91.

Kalicz-Makkay,

1974;

Kalicz-Makkay,

197

6,22-23:Kalicz, 1980, 102-103; Makkay, 1982, 12G-122;Makkay,

^^ 26-37; -lt-*tTr-Nlakkyy,I972,79-81;Kalicz-Makay,L911,Z2-26;Katicz,t980, 1982, Raczlry, 1989, 234_235, fgs. 2-5.

The Neolithic of the Great Hungarian Plain and the Vina

Complex

decorations can be found on Several Krs sites, earlier assigned to the ProtoVina period' on the Southern part of the Hungarian Plain (e. g. csd-Kirito).18 This iJthe very moment when the connection between Szatmr group and the early Vina comlex can be established. Since the Szatmr II, i. e. the earliest ALP runs paralelly with the Ciumesti-Piscolt-Vina A, the Krs find complexes of the Central and Southern part of the Alfld, earlier called Proto-Vina, may be considered contemporary to Vina A. The next logical step is that the end phase of the KrS is parallel with the beginning of the Vina A which means that the name ''Proto-Vina'' becomes anachronistic.lg This relative chronological system explains why the Transdanubian Linear Pottery (TLP) displays typological affinity towards both the earliest Alfld Linear Pottery -ALP) and the latest Krs.20 The supposed partial contemporaneity of the Krs culture, the ALP and the Vina A in the Tisza region corresponds to G. Lazarovici's theory concerning the Banat.21 Divergencies may occur in the different territories as far as
the longevity of the coexistence of the various cultural groups is concerned. The

problems of Proto-Vina and the different views of it have been discussed several times in detail by N. Kalicz, J. Makkay and J. Chapman.22 Contact between the Alfld Linear Pottery and the Vina culturewas eStablished, curiously enough, through the marshy area of the Krs rivers, the Maros, the Aranka and the Temes. It is also important to note that there are more imported ALP fragments on Banat sites than vice versa.23 It may perhaps hint at the specal direction and content of cultural relations. The early contacts are convincingly described by G. Lazarovci, based on the sites of Gornea and Fratelia, among others' which belong to the Vina A period.2a The other endpoint of the connections is illustrated by the Vadna grave, belongng to the sphere of influence of classical ALP, where one of the grave goods was a solid pedestal, red painted Vina bow1.25 To judge from scattered examples, the contacts reconstructed during the classical phase of the ALP and the Vina A could not have been very intensive. With the disappearance of the Krs culture, a new
economy and.settlement type forms, better adapted to the circumstances of the Tisza region, was manifested by ALP occupation of the whole Hungarian Plain. In this development, the main dynamic related to inner forces within the context of an adaptational process. (As a result of this change a new form of animal hust8

le

N Kalicz, Lg'18-:7g,13-46; Makkay, 1978, 940;Pavk, 1980, 7-90.


21

Raczky, ].988, 28, figs.2_9.; Raczky, 1989,234_235,ig.7. Raczky, 1983, 187-190; Raczky, \988, 27 -29 ; Raczky, L989, 234-?35.

Lazarovici-Nm eti, |983, 26, Chapman, 1981, 33-38.

Lazarovici, L979a, 29-3L; Lazarovici, 1983, 135-141; Lazarovici, L984, 70-71;


3'1 .

2Sumary of the opinions: Kalicz, 1985,22-23;Matkay,\987,15-24;

Makkay, 1990,L13-I221'

B Kalicz-Makk ay, 1977,94; Lazatovici, 1916,ZIL; Lazaroici, L979, L42; Sznszky,1983, 244-246;'r o1maver, 7982, 279-283; Makkay' 1982, 3G-3 1 and notes 36-37. u Lazarcvici,l983, 135-141 and fig. 1: 14,fig.2: L-11. 5 Korek,
1957, 1.5,24, pl.

l: 2.

bandry with the leading elements of cattle and pig emerged in this territory).26 That is, the direct effect of the Vina culture cannot be observed on the developed economic strategy of the ALP. Contrary to the previous period, the intensification of Vina contacts may ' be observed during the later phase of the ALP, together with the appearance of the Bkk, Szilmeg, Esztr, and Szaklht culturalgroups.27 This crnge can be demonstrated by the quantitative growth of prestige import goods. The most illustrative example, however, is the Southern spread of Bkk and Szaklht pottery.$ One of the most important manifestatircns of cultural interrelationriript

is the mixed material culture of the Bukovat group' which according to .


rivers.2g In this group the decorative elements of the

Lazarovici's research, occupied the territory betweerthe Maros and the Temes

n_ot

be found together with ornamental styles from the Vina. All these ohere in a new cultural s1mthesis approxmately from the beginning of Vina B 1, according to the majority of specialist. The proofs of Szaklht-Tsza_Vina contacts were

AlP-Szaklht pottery can

and fi{n1t Vina 81

long ago recognized at the sites of Battonya_Parzs tanya, BattonyaBattonya_Gdrsk

spheres are the sacrificial pits from the Hungarian Plain in which tiaces of Vina cultural phenomena may be detected. At the site of Tiszaug-Vastlloms, the neck fragment from a big face-pot togetherwith the charateristic engraved M motive of the Szaklht group (Fig. 1: 1) was found in a small cylindiical pit.31 The rest of the pot was missing, so itseems that the face was intentionally 'buriedt in the pit. The same assemblage contained a small bowl with incised ornament (Fig' 1, 2). This ornament in itself is alien to the Szaklht group' which is also underlined by another special feature: there is, for example, a gioup of incised symbols on its base.32 It is a well-known fact that similar symbols can be found in the Vina-Tordos period in the Balkans, although they rarely occur on the Hungarian Plain.33 This fact means that an alien cultural element, a bowl with incised marks on the base, appears in the Szaklht cultural context as part of a sacred practise. It is a strikingly fresh contextual element in Szaklht_Vina cul-

Further important evidence about the contacts extending into deeper

and the verybeginning of 82'30

with data indicating contemporaneity

th

tural relationships. Pottery fragments from the Vina culture were found in
b Bokonyi, L969, 226-227 ;Bknyi,
28

I97 5, 4-9;Bknyi,

L984, ?3_32. etc.

Kosse, I979,134-I35;Mavkay,L9BZ,3Landnote3l,4240, ^- ,^,nKalicz-MaWay,I971,15-17; 96-101.

Ka\icz, 1911,105-155; Lichardus, 1974, 101-108; Kalicz-Makkay, Lgl?, 45,101-104, 84.5, 106-110;I-azarovici,1979,1,65;I_azarovici,1983, 158; Sherraft, IgB2^:30l..
29

Lazarovic, I97 6, 212-213; Iazarovici, I97 9, 143_155; Lazarovici, 1983, 141-158.

- ^^ Goldman, ^3}Sznszp']9l],zt|z20;Sznszky,I978,3_12;Sznszky,I979,67-71;Sznszky,1988, 5-29; 1978, 1340; Goldman, 1984, passim.


Raczky, |982, 223-230, ig. 3: 1. Raczky, 982, fig. 3: 2-3. 33 Mokkay, 1969, 9-49; Makk ay,1990a,29-81; Renfrew ,1976,192-L95;Winn,
32

3l

1981, 11-40.

The Neo|ithic of the Great Hungarian Plain and the Vina Compl

another early SzakIht assemblage from the same site' where the ALP decorative traditions are still characteristic. Both the material and the decoration of these import goods fundamentally differ from the local AlP-Szaklhtwares.3a on thes fragments dots or stabs can be seen between incised double lines. The most probable dating of the Tiszaug phenomena seems to be the very beginning of Vina B 1'J5

Homokbnya; a hearth and traces of burning were found on the bottom of the

Another sacrificial pit has recently been unearthed in Tiszaigar

pit, emphasizing its special function. The fragment of an Esztr type face-pot was ound in it (Fig. 2: 1), dispIaying thevaulted decoration of the relevant face-pots from the Tiszadob-Bkk group'36 or rather its black-on-red painted variety' The

nearest parallels from Esztr assemblages were published from the site of and this new painting technic (painting before Berettyszentmrton-Morotva37 firing) in the younger ALP contexts of the Beretty region has had the closest
connection with the wares of the Lumea-Nou complex in Transylvania.38 An astonishing find beside the face-pot in Tiszaigar was the 15 x L3 cm clay tablet (Fig. 2:2). Geometric motifs in three parallel outlined vertical fields were incised on it. The main ornament was completed by 3 single and 2 double engravings outside the field frames. The first approachwould suppose a highly stylized human figure, which is best seen in the pentagonalface in the upper part of the central vertical field and the hexagonal body under it. Other interpretations may, ofcourse, also arise, however the syrnbolic representations ofstanding (dancing ?) human figures have become very common in the local Late Neolithic and these have always connected with special objects of the Tisza_Herply-Csoszhalom

cultural entities.3e

The Tiszaigar clay tablet, nevertheless, remains unique in the Middle Neolithic of the Hungarian Plain. The only phenomenon which may be related to it is, perhaps, a small decorated clay disc from Battonya-Vidpart, from an

early Szaklht milieu.4o The assemblage associated with the Tiszaigar find includes pottery fragments from the younger ALP,Esztt and early Szaklht periods. Accordingly, it can be related, with great certainty' to the end of Vina A or the beginning of Vina 81. The Tiszaigar clay tablet certainly belongs to the complex problem-circle of Tordos-Tartariawhich has recently been treated in detail by J. Makkay'41 S
3a

3sRaczlcy, 1982,226. s Kalicz-Makk ay,L972a,13-15; Kalicz-M akkay,1977,61-64; Makkay, 199L,321'. 37 Mth, 1979,p|.1, fig. 1, fig. 3 (the latter is turned upside down). 38 Kalicz-Makkay, 1977,52, 105-106; Comsa, 1974, 7-8; Paul f98L,2tJ6; I:zarovici, 1991, 100_114; The best parallel for the Hungarian face-pots is from the site of Piscolt: lazarovici-Nmeti,

Raczll,

1982, fig. 5: 9-10.

'n"'

o';ff.
a)

l: Raczlry (ed) L987,Szegvr tigs.4,22_?4,csd figs. 19-20. Sznszky, 1919, 75, fig.2; some critical remarks: Makkay, I990a,73. a1 Mokkay, L9 69, 949 ; Makkay, Ig'7 4-'7 5, 13-3 1; Makkay, I 990a, 28, 40-8

1.

1,52

p. Raczky

sphere. A good example of the reciprocal effect is provided by the Szaklht type face-pot in the Bukovat groupa7 and from Vina itself.a8 Behind the standardized anthropomorphic representations lies a similarity of transcendent ideas, i. e. a relationship on the ideological background may be hypothesized. All these provide perhaps strong enough evidence to demonstrate the closer connection between the Tisza region and the territory of Banat-Transylvania beginning from the end of Vina A and developing through Vina 81. A dynamic Settlement concentration started at the end of the Vina 81 period on the territory of the Szaklht group, especially in the Southern part of the Plain.4e This process of nucleation consequently appears on a certain level of the Neolithic development throughout Europe too.so Accordingly this re-organization, also touching econornic and social spheres, resulted from a local development on the Plain in just the same way as elsewhere. The emergence of the tell settlements South of the Krs rivers and the beginning of the Tisza culture has been considered the result ofextended Southern influence from the end of Vina 81 and the beginning of Vina 82.51 Earlier views, according to which settlement nucleation and tell settlements were the manifestations of a single event, inhibited research for a long time.52 The best argument against this view is the existence of the greatTisza settlements North of the Krs rivers, which are not tell-like settlements and attest to the phenomena of a different type of settlement nucleation.s3 The early diffusion of the TiszaandHerply culture tells and their geographical dstribution, suggest essential cultural links with the relevant settlements in Transylvania and the Banat.sa It is further underlined on
a2winn, 1981, 19-184.
43

there is no need to discuss it here. It must, however, be emphasized that the phenomena observed in Tiszaug and in Tiszaigar are highly similar. The Vina type elements appear in both sites within the sphere of sacred belief. It means that during this period the cultural contacts between the Hungarian plain and the Balkans became stronger, also excercising influence on the 'ideological'

M. M. Winn,a2 E. Masson,a3 H. Todorova,aa B. Nikolovas and M. Gimbutas6 so

4 Todorova, 1986, z\i :212.


a5

Masson, Ig84, 89-123.

6 cimbutas, lggl, 308-32L.


41

Nikolou, 1986, 166-184.

Kalicz-Makkay, L97 2a, 9-I3. 49 Makkay, 1982, l23_I27; Makkay, I99I,319_323; Sherratt, 1982, L7-20;Kalcz,1986,
127 -I32;
50

4 Vasi,

I-azarovici, 1983, fig. 8: L7, fig. L5: 3, 7, 9. 1932-1936, (193) pls. 108-109 and on page 32, fig. 69; Kalicz, 197l,15G-153;

sl
s2 53

Raczky, L987, 69. Starling, 1985, 4L-57.

Kalicz-Raczlg, Ig87, 2''1,, 25--27.

Makkay, LIBZ, 104-163. Y'alie, 1986, 127-L3l;Kahcz-Riczky, 1987, 15-19; Raczky, 1987, 69-70; Makkay, 79II,3ZZ. 5a Kalicz, 1985, 128-130; Raczky, 1981, 7 O;Makkay, 7ggl, 3ZZ.

The Neolithic of the Great Hungarian Plain and the Vina

Complex

153

the Plain by the great wattle-and-daub houses with raised floors, with split trunk reinforcing constructions and sometimes having a foundation trench structure.ss It seems probable that the tell settlement type associated with a settled way of life came to the Hungarian Plain from the above mentioned direction. The cul-

in consequence of these effects were soon accepted as indicated in several studies by A. Sherratt,56 R. Tringham,5T T. Kaiser - B. Voytek,s8 B. Bruknerse and J. Chapman.60 Thus at the turn of Vina 81 and 82 a new economic form appears

tural changes in the Tisza region must have felt the Northern diffusion of the developed intensive production economy ofthe Balkans. The changes appearng

resents an even more intensive phase of cultural contacts. At the same time, the network of these contacts also spread, e. g. the relationship between Transylvania-Banat and the Plain became more significant.62

by the neighbouring Southeastern cultural area, namely the Vina culture. It rep-

on the Plain which indicates the beginning of the Late Neolithic in the Tisza region.61 This northwards extension of the tell-economy was greatly influenced

very strong connections of the two cultural entities have been described by several authors.3 The best example seems to be the Cska (oka)-Kremenyk
settlement,where somethng like a symbiosis of the two cultural constituents may be observed.il The other import goods only enrich the picture, compared to this site' Thus it was no wonder tht pottery fragments with channelling (Fig. 3: L4,

The material results of the Tisza and the Vina exchange networks and the

Fig.4:2-3),pattern-burnishing tonya-Gdrosk 6-7).

import wares' have been found in Hdmezvsrhely-Kknydomb,6s

(Fig. 3: 5) solid pedestals (Fig.5: 3,5-7),red slip (Fig. 5: 1',2,4) andcharacterstic incised decoration (Fig' 4:1), allcertainly Vina

Bat-

and lately, in csd-Kovshalom.67 There are also some new examples for the special pottery signs of Vina type in the TiSZa culture (Fig. 3:

The application of bitumen for the decoration of Tisza pottery presents the clearest proof of the exchange contacts with Transylvania.ff Accumulation of
55

Kalicz-Raczky, 1987, 18-19; Horvth, 1989,88-90.

s6

Sherratt, 1983, 190-194. sTTringham, 1984, 16-18.'


58

Kaiser-Voyte k, 1983, 324-353.

se d)
1 2 3

Brukner, 1986-87,

3Hz.

Chop.an,

1989, 33-58.
.

Kalicz-Riczky , Ig87 , 25-27

il
6s

Sherratt, 1,982,19_23; Raczky, 198, 106; Kalicz, 1989, 105-10. Chapman, 1981, 106_108. Kalicz, 1970,14-18; Kalicz,1971,75TI56;Kalicz,1989,104-106; Banner, 1960, 1-56; Bognr-Kutzin, Lg66,z63-265.

ffi
67

Bonn"., 1930, pl. XV: 7)


Sznszky, 1978, figs. 1-5.

Raczky, 1986, fig.6: Z,ig.I0l 14, 15, 18,20; Raczky, et al. 1985, pl.25: 7-8; Raczlry, 1987' Raczky, 1986,
104;

23.

ff

Kalicz-Raczky,1g8'l,ZZ.

154

P.

Raczky

prestige raw materials (Spondylus and copper) has been observed in the latest excavations on the Late Neolithic sites of the Tisza region.g An obvious trace of active contacts is the large amount of lithic raw material from distant sources.To The finds suggest that the complex rites, connected to domestic shrines, were established as the result of Balkan influence, especially in the Tisza culture. Parallel phenomena at Vszto, Gorzsa and Parta should be considered.71 Earlier, J. Makkay pointed out similar connections concerning the male figures seated on thrones, however his argumentation has had some problematic points.72 An

increasing number of analogues to the bucrania of the Vina culture' Summaized by J. Chapman,73 have been found on the Plain (Gorzsa,Herply).1a Similarly, the altar or shrine depiction from csd decoratedwith double}nmal heads, hints at Balkan origins.Ts The above data show that contacts between the Neolithic cultures of the Hungarian Plain and the Vina culture were fully developed in the period be_ tween Vina B2 and Vina D1, when the development of the two cultural territories was most strongly related. Later, with the disappearance of the tell settlements in the Tisza region, the intensity of the contacts decreased.7

HEOJII4T BEJII4KE MABAPCKE PABHI4UE H BAHqAHCKI4 KOMNJIEKC (Hoau apxeo;rolllKt .qoKa3l,l o rl'r.oronr,ru' nesaua)

Pegrue
paBHr4ua ynex

BHH.llHcKe KyJrry'pe 3a HeoJI}'T trla$apcxe paBHLqe.' PaHo je orxpr'rneua il lloBe3axocr n:uefiy rrrarepr-tjarra Krs xyrrrype u uarepHjaaa Haberror Ha HuIa3HuIry Ctapveno.'' Vnope.qo c

3axla:ryjyha cnojurr.r reorpascxo-xlauarcrl,rM KapaKTepI{cTLKaMa' nemaxa uafupcxa je 6rna reoro rroBe3aHa ca upazcropujcruu patrojeu jyroucrorne Erpone. ore cy ae:e 6ule noce6go l,BpaxeHe ToKoM HeoJITa' KaIa MHore KyIrypHe nojale y oloj o6racra noce jacna o6enexja jyxu,avxor nopeK;ra. Joru noqeTxol\.l oBor BeKa IluoHHpcKI4 paP?,l4 cy cxpeHynu naxH,y Ha xrryvuu srraraj

"'

npo6levou rpyne Szatmr, xoja ce pacnpocTupaJla y o6lacru rop*er toxa Tnce.r}rh HcnocTaBa'o ce aa je rpyna Szatmr I 6urIa nosesaHa ca TpaHc}lJlBaHcKoM KyJITypoM Krs-Cris,
6e 70 71

oBrlM pe3y']Trafl,rua nojaruo ce npo6leu,r,rrrrepnperauuje BlmqancKllx o6luxa y 3aTBopeHM HaJIa3I{Ma npeMeTa Krs ryrrrype."-" oso je nnratr,e xacunje .qoBe.qeHo-y--Be3y ca

Kalicz,1989, 106. Kaczanowska, 1985, L24-1,50; Bird 1988,

27

I-21 2; Lech, 199

1,

566-569.

Hegeds-Makkay, 1987, 92-103; Horvth, Ig87, 44 |-azarovici, 1985,7-:7t; Lazarowci, 1986, 1212; Lazaroci, 1989, 149-1'1 4. 72 Makkay, 1964,344; Makkay, 79'18, 16+183.
73 7a

Chapmun, 1981, fig. 93.

Kalicz-Raczky, 7987, 26-27.

45; Kalicz-Raczky, 1984, 135; Kalicz-Raczky, Lg87 , Iz1'. Raczky, 1986, 104-105, ig.7:2;Raczlry, |981,ig.28. 7 Bognr-Kutzin, L972,183-18; Makkay, 1982, 158-159; Kalicz-Raczky, L984, 133;
75

Horvth, L987,

The Neolithic of the Great Hungarian Plain and the Vina Complex

155

[.ITo Hapoqrro BlxI{ 3a I{aJIa3e I,I3 Mhteleka. C apyre cTpaHe' rpyna Szatmr II sanpano upegcranrra rrajpaur,rjy {asy .nrarreaprre Alfld reparr'rnxe, xojy xapaxrePuury uIonlr Tpoyrnac_ Bunqa TOn JII4a, JIOHqlr C rIpTe)KOM JILrqa Ca JryqHoM 4eXOpaUuioru, Ko[ITaHe KaUIHKe nana

A u,

npe csera,.uerpaquja yperunau,eM n cJII{KaIreM." 4cta BpcTa.EeKopaunJe Moxe ce rrahu rra HeKoJIlIKo HaIa3uIIITa Krs ryrrrype ua jyry uattapcxe paBHHue' KoJa cy paHI'IJe y ToM nepuoy npEIIIlcI{BaHa npoTo_BHHrIaHcKoM IIepEoAy _rpyn (Ha nprrr'lep ocsd-Kirit)."'Ynpano Szutmar u parror BHHqaHcKol KoMIIJIeKca' Byayhz ce Moxe ycTaHoBIlTll resa u:ue$y IIoKaJIaIIaJIa a ce Ky,lTypa Szatmrll, rj. rrajparruja nl4HeapHa KepaMI{Ka AjtQory' BpeMeHcKI'l. ro'os rr'.rnr'eica y jyxHn o6.nacrr'rua A-rr$orr5, parmje ca Ciumesti-Piscolt-Burrqa ":r'u'" Mory ce cMarparl{ caBpeMeHI{M y o{Y99-y- ua Bunvy A' no3r{arlr no.[ Ha3r,rBoM uporo-BuHra, JII4HeapHe Alfld xepauuxe n flperuocrauxa o AelnuirqHou npeK-Jla[a*y Krs

Blnne A y llorlrcjy

3a parnrnxy o npeTxo,qHor nepaoa' javarre rorraraTa ca BaHqoM BI,I,uJLHBo le y Kac_ rrujoj Qarugr.r".p". rota *eparrn"ie, rao n nojana KyJITyPHID( rypua Bkk,Szilmeg.,Esztr u lzak|htzl. 3rrarajua cBe,uoqaHcTBa o 4y6;rav Ao.qplrMa npecTaBJBaJy xpTBeHe JaMe ca rualapcxe paBHl,rqe' xoje nora:yjy rpaio"e suHqaHcrl KyJrrypHffi nojana (Tiszaug-

o.uroBapa orryaunjn

"Ky'Type, y EaHary".

Vasutlloms n Tiszaigar-Homokbnya, C. l-2). Pacnpoorparrerrocr ,uelona xojn npunaaajy norucxoj u Herply KyJrryprr ! }LlD(oB reorpalcKl.l pacnope.u HaBoe Ha 3aKJByqaK o cyruTI'rHcK}IM KyJrrypHrrM Be3aMa ca omoaapajyh'{ili rrac:rraua y TpaHcLIBaEnju u Bauaty. Marepujarrrre noc'egl,lqe pa3Mege ntuebv norncre fi Br,rHqar.rcKe KyJrype u cHaxHe nese r,I3u.eby r5m( onI4cHBaJIO je nuue
(c.n. 3-5). Hase,qeulr no4aqn uoxalyjy Aa cy goAapu usuely "u."arra paBH}Iqe I' Bt4HqaHcKe KyJITyp9 6raln y rrynoj-uepa pa:rajenu "ol*"** Kylrypa ualapcxe y nepgoy u:eby'Br.rure b2 u'B"rrq" 2,xal,je pasnoj ,unejy ryrrryprrw< o6nacrn AocTI'Irao iIajnnu cqnalr none:arrocra. Kacnuje' c HecTaHKoM TeJIoBa y floracjy' III{TeH3IITeT KoI{TaKaTa
uyropo3.

cy Halua ocagatrI*a

Hosu uaIaglr

I,IMnopToBaue BnHqaHcKe KepaMI,Ke nr csd-Kovshaloma

o6orarula

Je oIIaAao

ABBREVIATIONS
Banner J.,

1930 . 1935

AkMnydotnbi neolithkai
1930,49-158.

tetep _ Die

neolithischeAnsiedlungvon KMnydomb,Do|g6,

sats

hdmezvsrhelyi

Hdmezvsdrhely,

Do|g lL, L935, 97'125.

Koracparton

usgrabunlen zu Kotacpart bei


Szeged,

Lg36 Ig37 1960

Rgszetikutatsok Szegeden

z4z-285.

- Archtiologische Forschungen in
Dolg 13'
1937

Dolg 12, L936'

Die Ethnologie der Krs_Kultur, 1-56.

,3249.

The neolithic settkrnent on lhe Kremenyk Hilt at Cska (Coka), ActaArchHung 12' 1960'

Banner J.-Prducz M., Lg46-Lg48 Jabb adatok Dl-Mag,aronzg jabb-kkarhoz - Cotltibutions nouvelles nolithique en Hongrie, ArchErt 7-9' l94u8, 194L. Br IC T.'

d l'histoire

du

1988

Distibution of Lithic Raw Mateials on Prehistoic Sites, ActaArchHung 40, 7988,25L274. Das Neolithikutn in ungarn, ArchA 40, 1966' 249-280The Earty Copper Age Tiszapolgr Culture in the Carpathian Bcslll, ArchHung 48' Budapest 1972.

Bognr-Kutzin I.'

1966

1972

156
Bknyi

p.Raczkv
S.,

1969

L975 1984
Brukner B.,

Archaeological prolkms aryd methods of recognizirtg animal dotnesrication, In: p. J. Ucko_G. W. Dimbleby (Eds.): The domestiiatio and exploitation of plants and animals, Londo n 1,969, 219 -229. Effects of Envirotnrcntal and Cultura'I Changes on Preltistoic Fauna ssemblages,In:M.L Gastronomy' The anthropolo51' of food and food habts, The TIague-Paris 11t-ot1 Qa.): 1975,3-I2.
Die Herkunft bzw. Hemt:bihdung der Haustierfauna Stlosteuropas und ihre Verbindungen mit Sdwestasien, In: H. Schwabedissen (Ed.): Die Anfnge des Neolithikums vom orient bis Nordeuropa IX, Kln-Wiel 1984,2443.

1968

Neolit u Vojvoditti. Sad 1968.

The

Neolithic Peiod

irt

Vojvodina,Disserrationes

5,

Beograd-Novi

1986-87 A
Chapman J.,

Contibutiort to the Inves.tigation of Connections and Relationships Among the populations of Southeast Pannonia, the Central Part of ttrc Nor'th Balkani and the rea Nnh of the Black Sea Between 4000 and 3000 B. C., RAD 30,t986_19g7,3341,.
Thetr4na culture ofSouth_-East Europe. Studies in chronologt, econotny 117, I-[, Oxford 19g1. The early

1981

1989 1927 1929 1930


Comsa E.,

International Series

andsocieql,BAIl

Balka, village,Yaria Archaeologica Hu ngarica 2,19g9, 33_53.

ChildeV. G.,
The Danube Thoroughfare and the Beginnings of Civilizarion in Europe, Ant'iqury l,7927, 79_9L The Danube in

hehistory,Ortofi 1929.

New views on the relations of the egean and the tlorlh Balkorls, JHs 50, 1930, 255-262.
D^ie

19'74

Rumciniens.

Entwicklurtg Peiodisierungund relative Chrortologie

ZtA 8,

L97

4,

144.

der jungsteinzeitlichen

Kulturen

Fewkes V. J.-Goldman H.-Ehrich R. W., Excavations at starevo, Yugoslavia, Seasorc of BASPR 9, 1933,17-54.

1933

1931

and

1932.

A Preliminary Report.

Gallus A.,

i ta fin du nolithique, RIEB 6, 1938' 520-530. Gimbutas M., rhe civilizatiott of the Goddess: The world of old Europe,SanFrancisco 1991.
Des mouvetnents vers les Balkans

1938

199r

Goldman Gy.,

1978 |984

Gesichtsgefdsse uncl andere Menschendarstellungen aus

Battonya,BMMK5, 1978, 13-60.

Battonya-Gildrosk

Eine neolithische Siedlungin Sdostungam,Bkscsaba 1984.

Hegedus K.-Makkay J., Vszt_Mgor, A settktnent of the Tisza culture.In: P. Raczky (Ed.): The Late Neolithic of the Tisza Region, Szolnok 1987, 85-103.

L987

Holste FF.,

L939

Zurchronologischen StellungderWnta_Keramik,Wpz}6,I93g,1_21. Hdtnezvsrhely'Gorzsa. !! se.ttlenent'of the Tisza culture,In: P. Raczky (Ed.): The Late Neolithic of the Tisza Region, Szolnok 7997,3146.

Horvth F.,

198'7

1989

ASurvqonlheDevelopmentofNeolithic SeuletnentPanemandHouseTvpeshrheTisza Region,Yaria Archaeologica Hungarica 2, 1999, gS_96.

The Neolithic of the Great Kaczanowska

1985

Rohstffi, Technik und Typologe der neolithischen Feuersteinindustien im Nordteil


Flussgebietes der Mitteldonau.'Warszava 1985'

des

Kaiser T.-Voytek B., iedentism and Economic Change in the Balkan Neolithic. JAA2,I983,323-353.

1983

KaliczN.,

Lg'1o

ber die Problerne der Beziehungder Theiss-uttd der

Lengel- Kultur. ActaAtchHungZZ,

r97'.|

1g78-:7g

Sdliche Beziehungen im Neolithikwn des sudlichen Donaubeckns,In: F. Schlette (Ed.): Evolution u"nd Revolution im Alten Orient und Europa, Berlin1971', L45-L5'l' Funde des ijltesren Phase der Linietandkeramikin Sijdtransdanubierr, MittArchlnst 8-9,
Neuere Forschungenber die Entstehungdes Neolithih'ttts in t}ryam,Il:J.K- KozlowskiJ. Machnik (Edi): Problmes de la nolithisation dans certaines regions de l'Europe'

r9'10,13-23.

1980 1983 1985


1986 1989

19'18-79,1346.

Wroclaw 1980,97-122.
91-130.

Die Krs_Starevo

- Klkuren und ihre Beziehungen zur Lilrcarbandkeratrrrl<,

NNU 52' 1983'

On the chronologicat Problems of the Neotithic and CopperAge in Hungary,

MittArchlnst

14,1985,21-51.

ber das sptneolitische Siedlttngswesen itl tJngant,BAM 13, 1986, 127_138' Chronologische und tenninologische hoblerne irn Spiineolithikum des Theissgebietes, Varia Archaeologica Hungaric a 2, L989, 103-722 hobenrc des frhen Neolithikums der nijrdlichetl Tiefebene, A1baRegial2,7972,77_92. Geftisse mit Gesichtsdarstellungett cler Linienbandkeratnikin Ungam,ln: F. BachmayerE. Ruttkay_H. Melichar-o. Sihultz (Eds.): Idole - Prhistorische Keramiken aus Un_
garn, Wien L972,9-I5.

Kalicz N.-Makkay J.,

Ig72 l971a 1974

mhteleki aglagistenek (Guide to the Mhtelek exhibition: a swnmary.), Nyregyhza

1976 L977 Lg84

Die Linienbandkrarnik in cler Grossen lJngaischen Tiefebene, StudArch 7, 1977,


Budapest. Pretninary Report on the 1977-82 Excavations at the Neolithic and Bronze Age T"l!-S:r' tletnent ofberittyjfalu-Herpdly,Part I, Neolithic, ActaArchHung 36' 1984' 85-136. TIrc Late Neolithic of the Tisza Region, A suwq of recent archaeological research, ln:. P. Raczky (Ed.) The te Neolithicf the Tisza Region, Budapest-Szolnok 1987' 11-30.
The neolithic buial-finds at

'i]r|r**,ro^roe Siecllungitt Mhtelek_Ndas,MittArchlnst 6,L976,L3-24.

Kalicz N.-Raczky P.,

Ig8'1
Korek J.,

L957

A vadnci neolitikus srlekt -

Vadna,HoM L,I95'7 , L4'30.

KosseK.,

Ig']9

Settletnent Ecologt of the Krs tional Series 64, Oxford 1979.

and Linear Pottery Cultures in Hungary,

BAR

Intema_

KutzinT.'

Lg4/f4'7

A Krs_kultra (Tlrc Krs

cultare), DissPann Ser. II' No. 23, Budapest I944,t947.

Lazarovici G.,

79'76

ragen der neolithische Keramik itn Banat, Festschrift fr R. Pittioni, Wien 19'16,203'
234.

79'19 I979a

Neoliticul Banatului

Das

Neolithikutn in Banat, Cluj-Napoca 1979. 1979,27_3I.

Die Starevo_Cis-Kultur (Allgetnebte Fragen),StComCar

L58
1983 1984 1986 1989
L991
L76.

p. Racztu

Die Wna-Kultur und ihre Beziehungen zur Linietlbandkramik,NNNu 52, L983, 131Neoliticul timpuiu in Rotnania _ Das Frhneolithikum in Rumtjtlien, ActaMP 8, 1984,
49-104.

Sanctuarul neolitic de la Parta, Documente Recent Descopereite Si Informatii Arheologice, Bucuresri 1986, lZ-22.
Das neolithische Heiligtutnvon Parta,Yaria Archaeologica Hungarica
1,

cgrytpleytl clui - cheile Tunii - Lumea Noua - Icrod,In: G. Lazarovici-F. Drasovean (Eds.): Cultura Vina in Romnia, Timisoara 1991, 100-114.

19g9, L4g-I,14.

Lazarovici G.-K almar 2., Drasovean F.-Luca A. S., 1985 complexul neolitic de la Parta - Der neolithische Kornplex von parta,Banaticag, 19g5, '1-:7L.
I-azarovi'ci G.-Nmeti J.,

1983

Neoliticul denoltat din Nord-Vestul Rornaniei (Salajul Satmarul si Ctujul). -Die entwickelte lungsteinzeit im Nordwesten Rumiinien, Sataj, Satu Mare und CIuj, ctaMP 7,Ig83,

Irch

J.' 199L

1740.

The Neolithic-Eneolithic Transition in Prehistoic Mining and Siliceus Rock Distibution, In: J. Lichardus (Ed.): Die Kupferzeit als historische Eioche, Symposium Saarbrcken und Otzenhausen . _ ]'3. 11. 1988' Bonn 1991, 557_5i4.

Lichardus J.,

1974

Studien zur Bkker Kultur,Saarbrucker

MakkayJ.,

Beitrge zu Altertumskunde, Bonn 1974.

1974-75

1964 195 1969

Early Near Eastenr and south-East European Gorfu, AcraArchHung r0, 1964,344.
De wichtigsten Fragen der Kijrs_Starevo_Peiode, AASzeg 8, 1965, 3-18. The Late NeolithicTordos Groupo/Sr6zr, Alba Regia10,1969,949. S,ome,Strlligraphical 5,1974_'t5, r3_3L.

and Chronotogical hoblems of the Tartaia Tablets,MittArchlnst

1978 1982 ' 1987 1990 1990a 1991


MassonE.,

fucavations at Bicskc,I, The Early Neotithic-The Earliest Linear Bard Kerarnik, Alba Regia 16, 1978,940.

! rgaarorszgi Mrdsei (New

neolitihlm kutatsnak j eredmnyei, Az idorend s a npi azonosits Results in the Research of thb Iungaian Neolithic),Budape{tL982.
und der Linienbandkeramik,ComArch-

Kontakte zwischen der Krs-Starevo_Kultur

Hun91987,13-27.

The Protovina Problem _ as seen from rhe Northemmost Frontier,Vina and its World, Intem-ational Symposium. The Danubian Region from 6000 to 300 B. C. Beograd 1990, 113-126.

A ntaiai leletek

(The finds of Tartaia),Budapesr L990. Entstehung Blte'und-Ende de1Theiss-Kultur,|n: J. Lichardus (Ed.): Die Kupferzeit.als his_torische Epoche, Symposium Saarbrcken und Otzenhausen 6.'- ts. rt. i988, Bonr' 199I,3L9_328.
les

1984

L''citure" r]ans
|]ik9koi

Mth M. Sz.,

Civilisations Danubiennes Nolithiques,Kadmos 23, lg84,8g_723.

l9'l9

itn Fundgebiet Bere tyszentmrton-M

te.Iepls Berettyszenmrton_Morowa

orotva,

MilojiV.'

DM

lelhelyen _ Neusteinzeitliche Siedlung 1 97-9, 35-56.

L949 1950

Chronologie derjngeren Steinzeit Mittel- und Sclosteuropcs, Berlin, 1949.

Krs_Starevo-Wa,In:,Reinecke-Festschrift,Mainz1950,

108-118.

The Neolithic of the Great Hungarian Plain and the vina

complgx

!!!

Nikolov B.,

1986

Praehistorica

Signes surdes ouvrages enargilede B, 1986, 166-184.

I'epoqueprhistoriqueenBulgarie occidentak,Studa

Paul J.,

1981 1980 I98z

Der gegenwiirtige Forschungsstand zur

Petresti-Kultur,PZ

56, L981', L9'7-234.

Pavk J.' Raczky P.,

AltereLinearkeratnikinder Slowakei,sA28,1980' 7-a8.


Elzetes jeknts

a Tisza III Vklpcsohiiz kapcsold rgszeti munklatolcrl Szolnok megbei _ Vorbeicht ijber dii sich der ditten- Theiss-staustufe anschliessenden
ariiologischetl rbeiten iln Komitat Szolnok, Archrt 109, 1982, 223-230.
a kzps neolithikumba va! ttnenet Mrdsei a Kzp's FebTiszavidktt_ Questions orransition benveen the Early and Middle neolithicin the Middle and Upper Ttsza Region, ArchF,rt I 10, 1983, L61'-L94.

1983 1985 1986 Lg8'1 1988 1989


RenfrewC.,

A korai neotithikutnbl

RaczlqyP.-SeleanuM.-Rzsa G.-SikldiCb.-KallaG.-CsomayB.-oraveu.H._YieeM-Bntry E-Bknyi S'-Somoryi P., csd-Kovsha|om, The intensiw Topographical and Archieological Itestigation of a Lak Neolithic site' Preliminary Report. MittAIchlnst 14'
L985,25L-2'78.

Megjegzsek az "atfilldi vonaldszes krtnia" kialahllsnak Mrdshez(Notes on the prottim of the apparance of the AlfId Linear Pottery),In: J. Farkas-P. Nmet (Eds.): Rgszeti Tanulmnyok Kelet-Magyarorszgrl, Debrecen 1986, 2543. csd-Kovshalom. _ A settlement of the Tisza culture,In: P. Raczky -Ed.): The I-ate Neolithic in the Tisza Region, Szolriok 1987, 61-83. A Tisza-vidk kutturIis s lcotlolgiai kapcsolatai a Balknnal s az Egeikutnmal a neolitikutn, rzkor idiszakban' (Th cultuml and chronological corulections of the Tisza region with the Balkans and the Aegean h the Neolithic and Copper Age), Szolnok 1988.
Chronological Frameworkof the Early and Middle Neolithic in the Tisza

Region,Yaia Ar'

chaeologica Hungarica 2, 1989, 233-251.

1976
1953

Before Civilization: The Ratliocarbon Revolution and Prehistoic Europe, Harmondsworth


79't6.

SchachermeyrF.,

1953-54
Sherratt

Die vorderasiatische Kulturtift,Saeculum 5, 1953, 268-29I Dimini und die Bandkramik, MAG 83, 1953-54,I-39.

I98Z

,A'.,

I982a 1983
Srejovi D.,

Mobile resources: settlement and exchange in early agricultural Europe, In: C. Renfrew-S. Shennan (Eds.): Ranking, resource and exchange. Aspects of the archaeology of early European society, Cambridge L982, 13-26. Part
The Development of Neolithic and Copper Age Setllemen! in the Great
I,

The Regional Setting, OJA7,1982,?57-316.

Hungaian Plain,

The Eneolithic Peiodin Bulgaia in its Bulgaian Contut, In: A. G. Poulter (Ed.): Ancient Bulgaria, Papers presented to the International Symposium on the Ancient History and Archaeology of Bulgaria, University of Nottingham, 1981, Nottingham 1983' 188-1989.

1963

Versuch einer hbtorischen Wertung derWna-Gruppe, AI4, L963,5_11Colonization and successiott: The earlier Neolithic of Central Europe,PPS 51,1985,4I-5'1
.

Starling N. J.,

1985

SznzlryJ. G.' der Szaklhdt_Gruppe A szaklhti csoport idoltredke Battonyrl _ Das ldolfragrnent 1o'4,19'l'1:216-220. aus Battonya 1liom. Bks),Arcbr

197'7 19'18

DerWa-FutldvonBatonya,BMMK5'79'18,3_12.

.160

P.

Raczkv

Lg7g 1983 1988 1986

A korai szaklhti
group
a

t Ba

tonya,

ArchErt

csoport telepiilse Bauonyn _ The setllement of the early Szaklht


106,
19'7

9, 67 -7'7.

A Dlkelet_Atfld neolitilanmnaknhny idorendi MrdsrI (bereinige chronologische Fragen des Neolithikums itn siklstlichen Alfld) , ArchErt 770' 1983,243-246-

A korai
tonya

,BMM L1', 1988, 5_z9 .

szal<lhti latltura Battottydtl

- Funde

aus der frhen Szaklht_Kultur von Bat-

Todorova H., Kaueuuo-aeHztfia

eoxa a Eo,'tapua,

Co$ua

1986.

TompaF.,

L934-35

25

Jahre UrgeschichtsforschungittUngam

1912-1936,8RGK24-25,1934F35

(193'l),27-

12',1.

Tringham R.,

7984 L964

Architectural investigation inro houshold organiation in Neolithic Yugoshvia, Manuscript


1984,1,-2L.

Trogmayer O.,

1g8Z
VasM.,

Megjegtzsek a Krs csoport relatv idrenrljhez - Remarks to the relative chronologt the Krs group, ArchErt 91'1964,6'|-86.

of

Zur relativen Zeitstellung der iilteren Linearbandktrarnlk, Siedlungen der Kultur mit
Linearkeramik in Europa, Nitra 1982,279:284.

t932-36

PraistoiskaVina l-M,Beograd 1932-L936. he-WiinginSoutheastmtEurop:The


1981. Sign Sysemof the

Winn S. M.,

198]'

l4naCulureca

40008.

C.,Cdg*y

The Neolithic of the Great Hungarian Plain and the Vina

Complex

11

t-:"*--

-fifi.:''!*}i"-i
.-.:*TT-,.,:!e

!.r?.{9.si:.td itr:

jr:i {*u:r\

-! r..

i
l

'i;1'x''{.uf i
*_
-+-i".**i;ff ^

_ _ ."

PI. 1 Tazaug_Vasutllams,

sacifrcial pit. Face-pot:

1;

bowl with incised decoration: 2'

1,62

P.

Raczky

\lU&L_,,,,t

,4ffi

Pl

2 Tumigar_Homokbnya, sacrificial pit. Fragment of

incised omament: 2.

face-pot: 1; clay tablet with

The Neolithic of the Great Hunsarian Plain and the Vina

Complex

163

ffi.ffi{@

ry=---T;r----:'-

pbul$'?

Pl. 3 csad-Kovshalom, settlement of lhe Tbm culture. Imports of Wna type: 1-7.

1"64

P.

Raczky

--iw*)
Pl. 4 cs<jd_Kovshalom,
settlement of the Tisza culture. Impons of Wna type: 1-3.

The Neolithic of the Great Hungarian Plain and the vinra

complex

f-.-

ffi

rffi
a*q'Ea

,#o
7i
I

Pl. 5 csd-Kovshalom,

settlement of the Ttsza culture. Imports of tzina type: 1_7.

You might also like