Bánffy 2006 Eastern Central and Western Hungary variations of neolithisation models

125

UDK 903'1(439''633\634''>133.5Documenta Praehistorica XXXIII (2006)

Eastern, Central and Western Hungary –variations of Neolithisation models

Eszter BánffyArchaeological Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, HU

[email protected]

The Pre-Neolithic period in the Great HungarianPlain (Alföld)

In Hungary, there is only one region where a settle-ment niche, a series of authentic Mesolithic sites, hasbeen found, researched and proceeded. This is theJászság area, east of the Danube (Fig. 1) Here, twophases were distinguished by the excavator, Kertész:besides the older Mesolithic Jászberény phase, a set-

tlement of the latest period was also identified atJásztelek. (Kertész 1994a; 1994b). The environmen-tal and historical reconstruction of this phase hasgiven basic new information about the phase im-mediately preceding the Neolithic (Kertész-Sümegi1999; Sümegi 2003).

ABSTRACT – Until recent times, the Carpathian Basin was regarded as a uniform zone of neolithiza-tion. In the last few years it has become clear that at least three different types of transitions can bedistinguished in the Eastern Plain (Alföld) region: one in the Jászság area with authentic Mesolithicsites, one in the northern, one in the northeastern fringes of the Körös distribution area, and a fur-ther one in the southern part of the Danube–Tisza Interfluve where the impact of the formative Vin≠aculture must also be reckoned with. All regions differ from each other, concerning the contacts withMesolithic population and the phases of neolithisation. Regarding Transdanubia, the picture becomeseven more complex. The transition to the Neolithic obviously differed in each region: in the Dravavalley where the Star≠evo presence was very intensive, in the marshland around Lake Balaton, in theRába valley lying close to the Alpine foreland, in the northern Transdanubian Danube valley and inthe Little Hungarian Plain. Rejecting the simplifying model the assumption of a mosaic-like seriesof variations in the neolithisation process is offered. The process of Neolithisation is thus is far frombeing unified in the various regions. This short study tries to seek different models of neolithisationbehind the differences.

IZVLE∞EK – Do nedavnega so Karpatski bazen smatrali za enotno podro≠je neolitizacije. V zadnjihnekaj letih pa je postalo jasno, da lahko na podro≠ju Vzhodne ravnice (Alföld) lo≠imo vsaj tri razli≠-ne tipe tranzicije: prvega na podro≠ju Jászság, s prvotnimi mezolitskimi najdi∏≠i, drugega na sever-nem in tretjega na severovzhodnem obrobju podro≠ja Körös, ∏e enega pa na ju∫nem delu Donavsko-ti∏kega pore≠ja, kjer je potrebno ra≠unati tudi z vplivom kulture Vin≠a. Regije se v procesu neoliti-zacije med seboj razlikujejo tudi v odnosih med mezolitskimi in neolitskimi populacijami. V Trans-danubiji je ta podoba ∏e bolj kompleksna. Tu je neolitizacije v vsaki regiji potekala druga≠e: v Drav-ski dolini, kjer je bila mo≠no navzo≠a kultura Star≠evo, na mo≠virnatem podro≠ju okrog Balatonske-ga jezera, v dolini Rabe, ki le∫i blizu alpskega predgorja, v severni Transdanubijski donavski doliniin na Mali mad∫arski ravnini. V ≠lanku zavrnemo poenostavljen model neolitizacije in ponudimodomnevo o mozai≠ni seriji regionalnih procesov neolitizacije.

KEY WORDS – Carpathian Basin; Neolithic transition; Körös, Star≠evo; early and developed LBK groups

Eszter Bánffy

126

The north-eastern part of the Alföld(Fig. 2) shows a fairly different pic-ture from the mid-northern fringes,at least in the present state of re-search. The catchments of the riversBerettyó, Sebes and Fekete Körösform a complex, articulated landscapefrequently dotted with marshes andswamps. Although stone artifacts ofthe Late Mesolithic – preceding thetimes of permanent settlements – areknown from as far as Western Roma-nia, no archaeological evidence ofany settlements has been found. Thepalaeo-environmental analysis, how-ever, was able to show up some evi-dence for pre-Neolithic clearing andforest burning activity from around8400 cal BC, paths in the woodlande.g. in the Bátorliget marsh region as well as nearthe village of Csaroda in a marshy area, the ‘Nyíresláp’ (Sümegi 2003.21–22, Fig. 1; Sümegi-Gulyás2004.Ch. 3.8: Pollen and charcoal analysis). Around8400 calBC Tilia lost its dominace and Quercus be-came more typical (Willis et al. 1995), indicatingclosed forestation due to a milder climate with moreprecipitation. Dates for the mollusk fauna allow si-milar inferences (Sümegi 2003.21). Given space forsunlight, the growth of berries and especially hazel-nut in the bushy-shrubby undergrowth were en-hanced. Favorable changes in the landscape werefurther intensified by small-scale bush clearing, asfindings from several European localities have indi-cated (Gronenborn 1999; Zvelebil 1986; 2000). Pre-Neolithic “Tardenoisien” groups of people may haveonly temporarily settled in small ho-mesteads, and moved on with theshifts of the seasons accompanied bythe migration of wild herds along theconstantly shifting riverbeds. Maxim(1999.27–30, 221–222) thus conclu-ded from her examination of the li-thics from Transylvania and the Par-tium area that the river valleys andthe upland areas must have been in-habited by a local population beforethe first farmers reached this region.Paul regarded the indigenous contri-bution important enough to speak ofa “Präcris” culture, based on analogieswith the Balkans (Paul 1995.62–67).

The north-eastern part of the Alföldunderwent significant transformations

at the turn of the 7–6th Millennium BC. From thistime onwards there was a decrease in the ratio oftree pollen in the profiles. This refers to a drop inwoodlands, accompanied by a wide-scale extensionof furrow-weeds, signifying human activities in thelandscape (Willis et al. 1995; Gál–Juhász–Sümegi2006). Besides forest clearings, traces of forming“hunters’ paths” in the woodland, as well as hints offoddering animals with vegetation can also be ob-served in the region (Sümegi 1998; 1999). Quite ob-viously, and as radiocarbon dates of archeologicalfinds testify, this was a time when the first immi-grants from South-East Europe settled on the water-logged soils stretching between the rivers Szamosand Berettyó. The flint assemblage from the pre-Neo-lithic site at Tarpa-Márki Tanya can be considered as

Fig. 1. The Northern part of the Duna-Tisza interfluve area (TheJászság), with sites mentioned.

Fig. 2. The North-Eastern part of the Alföld and the adjacent Érmel-lék region in Werstern Romania. a) preneolithic sites; b) Körös-Criss sites; c) Early Alföld LBK (Szatmár II) sites.

Eastern, Central and Western Hungary – variations of Neolithisation models

127

archaeological evidence completing the scientific re-sults (Kertész 1994b).

The process of Neolithisation in regions of thenorthern Great Hungarian Plain (Alföld)

Studying the main characteristics of Neolithic distri-bution in the Balkan area, several archaeological tra-ces point to the inference that the Neolithic infiltra-tion into Moldavia through the Banat, and the Oltvalley, and Transylvania took a different path thanthe variant advancing westward from the Mid-Bal-kans, via the mouth of the Morava River. It seemsthat the Alföld region has much in common with theeastern type of Neolithic transition.

In recent decades, contradictory opinions have emer-ged about the Alföld Neolithisation. First, it was ge-nerally accepted that there were no people living inthe area in the late Mesolithic; thus the first farmersarrived in a “vacuum” (Gábori 1981). In 1982 Mak-kay came up with an entirely new idea. He ascribedthe peculiar northern frontier of the Körös and Star-≠evo cultures in the Carpathian Basin that contradictany natural geographical obstacles, to the hostile be-haviour of a local forager population (Makkay 1982.23). In the late 80’s the discovery of a real Mesoli-thic niche (mentioned above) in the Jászság area be-tween the Danube and the Tisza created the impres-sion that Makkay was generally right in his postula-ting an indigenous population, although at that timehe was not able to bolster his idea with any argu-ments. It is also possible that this population wasnot equally distributed in each Alföld region, not tospeak of the different activity in contacting the new-comers. Up until now the Jászság is the only regionwhere the presence of this Mesolithic populationcould be proven.

Concerning the early Neolithic development of East-ern Hungary, research was intensive in the mid-20th

century, so that the first reports and evaluating stu-dies appered in 1976 and thereafter (Kalicz, Mak-kay 1977; Raczky 1988; Kurucz 1989; Nagy 1998).Many decades ago, Kalicz and Makkay had alreadynoted that the sites of the old ‘Szatmár group’ inNorth-Eastern Hungary at Nagyecsed, Tiszabezdéd,Tiszavalk, Tiszacsege, Ebes, Ibrány and Ciumesti(Csomaköz) in the Berettyó and Szamos valley, inthe Érmellék area and in the Upper Tisza region canhardly be understood without assuming intensivecontacts with Transylvania (Kalicz, Makkay 1972.

78; 1977; Makkay 1982). At some sites (e.g. Nagye-csed-Péterzug, Tiszabezdéd-Servápa), Körös elementswere more dominant than the Linear Pottery traitsin the early Alföld LBK (Szatmár II) assemblages(Kalicz, Makkay 1977.20). Based on these features,Kalicz and Makkay assigned these sites to their ‘Szat-már I’ group,1 together with the easternmost-lyingMéhtelek, and close to it, the Romanian Homorodulde Sus (Felsőhomoród) (Kalicz, Makkay 1972.92;1977.22). Following his excavation of the Kőtelek-Huszársarok site, Raczky noted that the assemblagesof the Szatmár II group “contained many formal andornamental elements whose origins could only beexplained through the Transylvanian branch of theKörös culture” (i.e. the Cris culture) (Raczky 1983;1986.31; 1988.27). Thus the idea was raised that theSzatmár II group as the earliest phase of the AlföldLBK would go back to the contact between late for-mations of the early Neolithic: the Körös in the Alföldand the Cris culture arriving from the East.

This hypothesis was then reinforced by analyses ofsmaller regions, such as Nyírség in North-EasternHungary (Kurucz 1989; Starnini 1994). Early AlföldLinear Pottery sites are lacking between this areaand westwards to Hortobágy. Kurucz noted that thefinds from the early sites on the Szatmár plain (upto the Szamossályi site) differed from the assem-blages in more westerly areas to the extent that “anygenetic relations between the two seem very doubt-ful” (Kurucz 1989.15). The later development in thisregion definitely confirms this observation. In theMiddle Neolithic, this is the sole region occupied bythe “Esztár–Szamos region Painted Pottery group”,which is the only painted sub-group of the immenseLBK culture.

Between North-western Jászság and the North-East-ern part of the Alföld, in the Upper Tisza region, thereis a contact area between the lowland and the Mátraand Bükk Mountains extends. (Fig. 3) Here, the stronggenetic relation between the early Alföld LBK settle-ments and the Körös culture can be seen.

Domboróczki came to the conclusion that the LBKformulation i.e. the Neolithic transition in this areatook place with practically no participation of groupsother than late Körös (Domboróczki 2001; 2005).Domboróczki completed his observations by hypo-thesising that local forager tribes that might havelived on the edge of the Alföld most probably with-drew to the mountains, and it was only in a later

1 This nomination is now out of use.

Eszter Bánffy

128

phase of the East Hungarian Neoli-thic that these groups began to mergewith LBK: namely, their traces wouldbe observed in the Tiszadob and Szil-meg groups of the developed LBK(Domboróczki 2003). Again, this in-ference could be reinforced by the an-thropological analysis of some gravesbelonging to these groups (Zoffmann2000). In connection with theseideas, it is to be noted that the origi-nal northern border of the Körös di-stribution along the Szolnok – RiverBerettyó line seems to collapse: newKörös sites are found north of this re-gion, even in the Upper Tisza area;moreover, most recently one site, ob-viously connected with obsidian mi-ning, was detected at the foot of theTokaj Mountains.2 Again, this is datathat seem to bolster Domboróczki’s postulations.

The later Alföld LBK groups, the Tiszadob, Szilmegand also the Bükk formations set out from the North-ern Mountains. The location of their possible localMesolithic roots is a highly relevant assumption,which claims good arguments. Before drawing anyconclusion on this question, however, some fieldsshould be considered in detail. Such questions aresigns of isolated development in pottery types anddecoration. Some decorative features seem to bealien to the LBK heritage, while other new featurescan also be found in southern Alföld groups, like theSzakálhát, thus making their isolated highland ori-gins questionable. Besides the basic studies and re-port already mentioned (Kalicz, Makkay 1977; Ku-rucz 1989; Nagy 1998; 2006), the proceedings ofsome further new sites along the M3 motorway, suchas at Füzesabony, Mezőszemere, Mezőkövesd andKompolt, have yielded some complementary infor-mation (Domboróczki 1997; 2003; Kalicz, Koós1997a; 1997b; 2000; Bánffy, Biró, Vaday 1997;Bánffy 1999). For the earliest and developed LBKphase, however, real highland sites are also known(Csengeri 2003; 2004; Bánffy 2000a). The other re-levant point is the exchange system which is seenas the basis for contacts between the Alföld and theassumed highland population. On this question theresearch work by Bácskay and Biró are essential,shedding new light on the raw material, provenanceand the typological features of chipped stone imple-

ments within the LBK groups. (Bácskay 1976; 1982;Bácskay, Biró 1983; 1987).

A further link with the Körös roots of Alföld LBK inthis region is the development of cult objects. In re-cent excavations of the northern Alföld, plenty ofpeculiar animal figurines and those depicting fabu-lous creatures (centaurs) have come to light (Füzesa-bony: Domboróczki 1996; 1997; Mezőkövesd: Ka-licz, Koós 1997a; 1997b). These early LBK finds canbe directly traced back to the Körös culture (Dom-boróczki 2003.39). This view seems to be comple-ted by earlier cross-cultural cultic depictions, such asbull figurines or four-legged altarpieces, that had al-ready been considered to have lived on as Körös in-fluences on the Alföld LBK (Kutzián 1944; Kalicz,Raczky 1981). The famous flat figurines from Méh-telek also seem to confirm the connections betweenthe south-east European type figurative art and theearly Alföld LBK, where flat, close to rectangular fi-gurines also occur. It can be assumed that the survi-val of cult object types may also involve the survivalof certain elements in the ritual tradition and cult life.

Further important indications of characterising dif-ferent ways within the Alföld development can befound when reviewing architectural traditions. TheEarly Neolithic houses of South-East Europe weresmall buildings. They were usually constructed on asquare, rather than a rectangular ground plan, andthey lacked an internal post structure, thus sugges-

Fig. 3. The Northern part of the Alföld with the adjacent Bükk,Mátra mountains. a) Körös sites; b) Early Alföld LBK (Szatmár II)sites.

2 I thank Pál Raczky’s kind oral communication here. János Dani, archaeologist to the Déri Múzeum Debrecen also reported about anorthernmost lying Körös site.


129

ting a light roof. Clay was used more abundantlythan wood (Lenneis 1997; 2000). The spaces out-side the houses were at least equally important asthe undivided intramural interior spaces, which ra-rely contained a hearth. East of the Tisza River, theKörös communities followed exactly this South-EastEuropean tradition in house construction. Althoughit has been claimed that the Körös houses actuallyrepresent the earliest, central section of Linear Pot-tery houses (Meier-Arendt 1989), I have found noevidence to confirm this. The Szajol-Felsőföld typehouses or those from the north (Krasznokvajda) dif-fer both in their form and in their orientation fromthe north-oriented and heavy wood long houses ofthe Central European LBK (Raczky 1977; Horváth1989; Losits 1980).

Besides architecture, pottery, physical anthropologi-cal analyses and similarities in cult objects, there isone more set new results which make a direct Körösimpact on the formulation of Alföld LBK groups veryprobable: this is new information on absolute chro-nology. The new dates for the latest Körös and earlyAlföld LBK (Szatmár II) period show a definite over-lap (Whittle et al. 2002; Domboróczki 2003), thusmaking direct contacts possible in this part of East-ern Hungary.

In sum: on the Northern fringes of the Alföld thereare three regions where the phases of the Neolithictransition have been cursorily examined. In the north-western part: at Jászság, there is direct evidence forlate Mesolithic groups, but contact with the Körösculture has remained hypothetical as yet. In the Up-per Tisza region, where the Alföld meets the Mátraand Bükk Mountains, traces of a dyna-mic Körös expansion have been ob-served. According to recent data, noconsiderable Mesolithic participationformed the early Neolithic in this re-gion. The forager groups may havewithdrawn into the highlands, contac-ting LBK groups only in their devel-oped phases – a working hypothesiswhich requires further research. Onthe North-Eastern fringe of the Alföld,the existence of a Mesolithic popula-tion could be partly shown by datafrom the natural sciences (i.e. by an-thropogenic impacts), and partly byflint assemblages from different sites.Direct contact with early Neolithictribes is probable, yet this still lacksdirect evidence. In this case, the ear-

liest Neolithic impact consisted much more of theeastern, Cris branch of Körös culture, rather than itsAlföld variant. According to recent research, the threeareas mentioned here constitute three variants of theNeolithisation process.

Preneolithic Period in Transdanubia (Figure 4.)

In case the existence of any pre-Neolithic (i.e. lateMesolithic) hunter-gatherer groups are assumed inTransdanubia, then these groups definitely had toface wholly new ecological circumstances in the mid-centuries of the 6th Millennium BC. In some periods,Lake Balaton split into two or three smaller lakes,with clear, cold water; when the climate turned war-mer and wetter, natural dams were breached andeven the northern Tapolca Basin and valleys southof the lake also became part of the lake. During theseperiods, the lake flooded the north to south valleys,to its south down to the Kapos River, occasionally asfar as the Drava valley (Cserny 1999). At these timesthe Sárrét bog, somewhat east of Lake Balaton be-came a one-meter-deep lake (Juhász, Sümegi, Zaty-kó 2006, in press; Bánffy, Juhász, Sümegi, in press).The water level of the lake was fairly low at the endof the Mesolithic, rising significantly around 5500–5400 calBC. The wetter climate and the rise in thewater level meant that lake shore inhabitants wereforced to move away from the lowest stream shoresand river terraces, and to follow the growing waterlevel along the shores of Lake Balaton (see also: Ju-hász, Sümegi, Zatykó 2006, in press). Despite thelack of well researched Mesolithic sites in the region,their presence in Transdanubia is partly reflected bysome evidence. Such a hint is the registration of pre-

Fig. 4. The Balaton region in Transdanubia. a) preneolithic sites;b) Star≠evo sites; c) earliest LBK site, d) prehistoric flint mine.

Eszter Bánffy

130

Neolithic forest burning. Traces of this activity wereobserved at Szentgyörgyvölgy, near the Pityerdombsite. The soil samples taken from the waterlogged,marshy banks of the Szentgyörgy stream flowing bythe site indicated intentional forest burning around8771 BP (7936–7821 cal BC) (Cserny, Nagy-Bodor2006). The burnt organic matter and the low levelof erosion in the area suggest that forest burningwas repeated fairly often, about every 15–30 years.This phenomenon is also shown in pollen data (Med-zihradszky 2001; Füzes 1989; Zólyomi 1980; Nagy-Bodor 1988; Juhász 2002). The pollen profiles forthe Balaton Basin and the marshland of the LittleBalaton region indicate that there was a sudden in-crease of hazel in the mid-6th century BC, and thatover one-half, 55 per cent of the ligneous species,was hazel around 5600 calBC, i.e. in the period im-mediately preceding the LBK (Juhász 2002, see alsoJuhász, Sümegi, Zatykó 2006, in press). Botanicalanalyses have shown that south-western Transdanu-bia was a hazel refugium during the last glaciation,and that it spread to other parts of the CarpathianBasin from this area. Still, the sudden, large-scale ex-pansion of the species can hardly be explained with-out assuming active human manipulation of the en-vironment (Bánffy, Juhász, Sümegi in press). Itseems likely that the growth of hazel was encour-aged by forest clearance, by the creation of smallclearings where this warmth-loving species yieldingstorable fruit with a high nutritional value couldthrive. A comparison of the frequencies of hazel andcereals in the pollen diagrams is most instructive:the two are inversely proportional. The increase ofcereal pollens is accompanied by a decline of hazelin the sediments. As a further hint of a Mesolithicpresence, there was a pre-Neolithic boat find nearKeszthely, which was no doubt used when the shore-line ran in that area, presumably still in the Mesoli-thic (Bakay, Kalicz, Sági 1966.76). As evidence clo-ser to archaeology, microlithic trapezes and othertypes of the late Mesolithic tool-kit, collected duringfield surveys, have long been known from Transda-nubia. Their dating, based on their typological traits,has never been challenged (Mészáros 1948; Pusztai1957; Dobosi 1972; Biró 1991). Most recently, athorough excavation was begun at the Regöly Meso-lithic site, south of Lake Balaton. The preliminary re-sults have yielded a great amount of stratified lithicinstruments, although intact settlement features havenot been found yet (Eichmann, Kertész, Marton, inpress). The Kapos valley and the Vázsony basin, lying

north of Lake Balaton near the Szentgál mine, areespecially rich in finds of this type. The stone toolsexamined to date were almost all made from red ra-diolarite from the Bakony Mountains. Most recently,a new project has the task of investigating some es-pecially promising sites south of Lake Balaton, andto clarify the late Mesolithic-Star≠evo interaction andLBK cultural development by excavation.3

The process of Neolithisation in Western Trans-danubia

Recent research into the Neolithic of Western Trans-danubia and the findings of three micro-regional re-search projects made it more than probable thatwestern Transdanubia and the Balaton region werepart of a frontier zone in the mid-6th millennium BC,the setting of the long interaction between indige-nous hunter-gatherer groups and immigrant Star≠e-vo communities from the south.

The probably already existing late Mesolithic horti-culture (see above) was expanded with the cultiva-tion of domestic plants after contact with Star≠evogroups (Berzsényi, Dálnoki 2006), and indigenouspeople also began to copy the immigrants’ vessels.The result of the interaction between the two groupswas the emergence of a genetically mixed populationthat soon colonized northern Transdanubia alongthe Marcal, Rába and Danube valleys, and later mi-grated farther along the Danube to eastern Austria,south-western Slovakia, southern Moravia and theheartland of Central Europe, where they played anactive role in the transplantation of a sedentary,food-producing lifestyle.

Adaptation to the changed circumstances was bothan option and a bitter necessity for each. The adap-tation to the cool and wet Alpine-Atlantic climate ofTransdanubia, with is heavy snows in winter, musthave posed a serious challenge to the Balkan immi-grants. Pityerdomb, Andráshida, and perhaps BrunnII near Vienna, finds from which are rooted in theStar≠evo tradition, indicate that they were capableof adapting (Bánffy 2004; Simon 2002; Stadler2005). On the other hand, a few Star≠evo groupsalso settled in the marshland around Lake Balatonand on islets in the marshland, in an environmentthat meant a similar challenge for farmers of south-ern origin. The settlements at Gellénháza, Vörs-Má-riaasszonysziget, Balatonlelle, and Tihany-Apáti re-

3 The Kapos and Koppány valleys in southern Transdanubia are the primary targeted areas. Participators in the program (2006–2009): E. Bánffy, T. Marton, K. Oross, R. Kustár.


131

flect this different type of adaptation (Simon 1994;1996; Kalicz, Virág, Biró 1998; Kalicz, Biró, Virág2002; Regenye 2006, in press; Biró 2006).

It follows from the rise of the Balaton water levelthat the one-time late Mesolithic settlements alongthe lakeshore are now all submerged. A closer lookat the location of the plentiful early Neolithic sitesaround the lake reveals that they lie directly alongthe changed shoreline of the period, when the waterlevel was higher than the present one, in the marsh-land or on islets in the marshland (Fig. 5). This settle-ment pattern broadly corresponds to the Mesolithicone. These settlements all lay in close proximity tothe water, in areas that were unsuited to agriculture.It is therefore possible that the majority of the settle-ments lying directly on the shore in the marshlandhad in fact been occupied by adapting Mesolithichunter-fisher communities and those smaller groupsof Balkan immigrants chose to settle in this area un-der their influence. If this was the case, it also impliesthat relations between the Star≠evo groups and theindigenous population were essentially peaceful.

In spite of the fact that the settlements lay in an en-vironment that was unsuited to cultivation, macro-

botanical finds from the earliest phase indicate asurprising variety of species. As to the samples fromPityerdomb, the number of remains was low for eachspecies, never exceeding twenty specimens (Ber-zsényi, Dálnoki 2006). The surprising variety (ein-korn, spelt, common wheat, barley and edible goose-foot), but low number of cereal grains would suggestthat the extent of cultivation in western Transdanu-bia and the Balaton region did not exceed that ofMesolithic horticulture – the range of plants cultiva-ted and tended in the open areas between the hou-ses and in the narrow zone along the shore was sim-ply broadened with the species adopted from theStar≠evo communities, together with the art of culti-vation. Thus, in the formative Neolithic phase, do-mesticated plants may not yet have become the basisof subsistence; instead, they seem to have been acomplementary source.

Mesolithic impact may well be assumed in early archi-tecture. In the northern and western Star≠evo distri-bution, new features appear which already form a linkto LBK buildings. In spite of the lack of houses on theStar≠evo sites in Transdanubia, the presence of burntdaub fragments suggest that these communities livedin small- or medium-size houses (Kalicz 1993.87).

Fig. 5. The Western Balaton region (satellite photo) indicating the ancient shorelines and the earliest LBKsites along.

Eszter Bánffy

132

In the earliest phase, early Central European LBKhouses were single roomed, with a southern andnorthern part added at some later date. Extramuralactivates were performed in pits, many of which hadsome sort of protective roofing, especially in thenorthern part. These phenomena can primarily beexplained by the climate, with cultural traditionsplaying a secondary role only. It would appear thatthe central section of the Central European LinearPottery houses evolved first. Timber played an in-creasingly important role in the construction of thesebuildings. The size of the two houses excavated atSzentgyörgyvölgy-Pityerdomb (Bánffy 2000b; 2004),the combined use of timber and clay, and the north-ern orientation appear to have been adopted fromthe pre-Linear Pottery period. The long pits flankingthe longitudinal walls are first documented at thissite. We may therefore assume that both Mesolithicand Star≠evo influences played a role in the emer-gence of Linear Pottery houses, as did the environ-ment and climate.

Contacts can also be analysed by examining earlypottery in Transdanubia. Significant differences canbe noted between the pottery assemblages from thelate Star≠evo settlements in western Transdanubiaand the Balaton region, and those from southernTransdanubian and more southerly sites. This diffe-rence, reflected in the finds from Szentgyörgyvölgy-Pityerdomb and a number of other settlements, canmost likely be attributed to the cultural impact ofindigenous hunter-gatherer groups (Simon 1996;2002; Bánffy 2004).

The examination and interpretation of cult findsleads to a similar conclusion (Bánffy 2005). The ap-pearance of the cult objects of the South-East Euro-pean Neolithic in transitional assemblages, such asthe one from Pityerdomb, and, later, of their copies,again indicates some form of interaction betweenthe two populations. There was no trace of the richdiversity of the Early Neolithic statuary of the Bal-kans either at Pityerdomb. This would suggest thatsome of the cult paraphernalia were adopted andused by the formative Linear Pottery communities,while others were discarded. Neither can we rejectthe possibility that certain elements of the cult in-ventory were adopted or copied for prestige reasons,as in the case of other Neolithic innovations, perhapsas the reflection of an incipient social ranking inthese indigenous communities. It is my belief that thelocal copies of cult objects and the drastic decline instatuary can be explained by the cultural impact ofindigenous hunter-gatherer groups in the mixed po-

pulation forming the early Linear Pottery communi-ties.

The survival of the Mesolithic lifestyle in the transi-tional period can also be traced in the chipped stoneinventory. The rich lithic assemblage found near Vö-röstó and Mencshely, two Linear Pottery sites in theVázsony basin by the northern shore of Lake Bala-ton, is in the late Mesolithic Tardenoisien microlithictradition. A closer examination of the stone artefactsreveal traces of sickle gloss on a few samples. Thereare two possible explanations: the sickle gloss canbe attributed to their use in Mesolithic horticulture,or the lithics came from an early Linear Pottery set-tlement preceding the occupation in the classicalphase (Biró 2001; 2002b). An interesting observa-tion is that the disappearance of this tool-kit coin-cided with changes in settlement patterns and sub-sistence at the beginning of the developed Transda-nubian LBK, the Keszthely phase – the very periodwhen the occupants of the Transdanubian settle-ments began to use the more simple range of toolsgenerally characterizing Linear Pottery cultures, re-stricted to sickle blades and a few other types (Biró1991; 2001; 2002a; 2002b).

The indigenous Mesolithic groups were clearly part ofthe mobile hunter-fisher-gatherer population whosestone tools and other remains have been found inthe Vázsony basin in the Balaton Uplands, in the Lit-tle Balaton region, and in the Szentgyörgyvölgy area.The interaction between the two populations prob-ably meant that the two distinct lifestyles and sets ofvalues acted as a stimulus, while their mutual re-liance on each other no doubt contributed to mini-malizing conflicts, promoting peaceful co-existence,or even the joint occupation of settlements.

This long-running process of gradual change suggeststhat the statement that the so-called ”Neolithic revo-lution” i.e. the radical change in subsistence did nothappen in the initial phases of the West Transdanu-bian Neolithic, but one phase later. In Transdanubiathe major change in lifestyles and subsistence pat-terns occurred not at the beginning of the Neolithic,as earlier believed, but some three or four genera-tions later.

The problems of Neolithisation in Eastern andNorthern Transdanubia (Figure 6)

Among the fairly intensive LBK sites from CountyFejér, North-Eastern Transdanubia (Makkay 1970;1978), the fairly intensive presence of only the deve-


133

loped phases can be confirmed. Among these, theBicske site is the only exception dated to the olderphase. It was named as the eponymous site for theolder Transdanubian LBK by Makkay. However, itseems that it may not represent the initial, oldestphase of the culture (Bánffy, Oross in press). Thereare several regions in Transdanubia where both theoldest, Sármellék-Pityerdomb typed pottery, and alsothe slightly later Bicske typed pottery, are present.First, the possibility had to be maintained that thisphenomenon may well be treated as a geographicaldifference, since there has not been abundant datafor assuming the opposite. In north-eastern Transda-nubia, for decades the Bicske typed material hadbeen the only representative of the old LBK, beforea new site was excavated in by Kalicz-Schreiber andKalicz (Kalicz-Schreiber, Kalicz 1992; Kalicz, Ka-licz-Schreiber 2002). Budapest-Aranyhegyi Road,lying in the marshy plain of the Danube bank inAquincum, northern Buda. It was dated to the olderLBK phase. Interestingly enough, older LBK sites didnot grow with time and increasing research inten-sity. The topographic description of the region ofEsztergom and Dorog (north-west of Budapest) con-tains no hints of LBK sherds that could be dated tothe older phase (Horváth, Kelemen, Torma 1979).As we shall see, along the northern banks of the ri-ver i.e. in South-western Slovakia, the situation isthe same. Pavúk himself was unable to present sitesof this type either along the Danube, or in the Csal-lóköz area on his most recent, 1994 map (Pavúk1994.147). The reason for this hiatusremains enigmatic. The contacts of theLinear Pottery sites in the Burgenlandand Lower Austria with Transdanubiasuggest that the main route of migra-tion led through the Danube valley.It is to be hoped that future investiga-tions will resolve this issue.

In connection with these observa-tions, Pavuk’s hypothesis of Neolithi-sation in South-western Slovakia isworth mentioning. These views, es-sentially unchanged for long deca-des,4 can be rejected on the basis ofthe following arguments. While ac-cepting J. Lichardus’ earlier “proto-Li-nienbandkeramik” theory (Lichardus1972), Pavúk made two claims (Pa-vúk 1962; 1972; 1980a; 1980b; 1994).The first of these was that Linear Pot-

tery society and lifestyle developed in south-easternSlovakia. The other, the more bizarre aspect of histhesis, concerned the date of the emergence of Li-near Pottery. Pavúk dissociated Linear Pottery deve-lopment from the cultural and ethnic influence of theBalkans, both in the Great Hungarian Plain and inTransdanubia, the latter being the more interestingof the two areas, owing to its proximity to Slovakia.In his opinion, the transition and the first use of pot-tery were not only entirely independent of the Kö-rös-Star≠evo culture and its possible effects on theNitra Basin, but actually began much earlier than thegenerally accepted late Star≠evo period, namely, inthe period corresponding to the early/classic Star≠e-vo phase. Pavúk attributed the undeniable similari-ties between late Star≠evo and Linear Pottery to thelater, southern expansion of groups from the NitraBasin, during the course of which the Linear Potterygroups interacted with the Star≠evo communities ofthe Spiraloid B phase in Transdanubia. He distin-guished four sub-phases in the early Linear Potteryphase of western Slovakia – the Nitra, the Hurbano-vo, the Bíňa and the Milanovce phases – in order todemonstrate the complexity and long duration of theprocess (Pavúk 1980a.40–47). This categorization isuncertain and controversial, to say the least, since itis based exclusively on the manufacturing techniqueand the (rather rare) ornamental motifs of the pot-tery. Only at Bíňa were fine, biconical wares found;the pottery from the other sites is dominated bythick-walled household pottery.

Fig. 6. North-Eastern Transdanubia with the adjacent Gödöllő hillsand Jászság region to the east with early LBK sites mentioned.

4 Most recently in Zvelebil M., Lukes A. (eds.), LBK dialogues. Oxford 2004.

Eszter Bánffy

134

It is very difficult, if not downright impossible to setup a finer typological classification and to distinguishchronological horizons on the basis of coarse pot-tery, a handful of mostly surface finds.5 Most of thepottery in question was admittedly recovered fromsmaller soundings and a handful of pits uncoveredduring small-scale excavations; very few representclosed assemblages and the “Hurbanovo phase” is ex-clusively based on a few surface finds. The Nitra typepottery can best be linked to the early Linear Potteryin the Balaton region; indeed: the absence fine waresand ornamentation can also be observed in assem-blages of the type found in several sites, e.g. Sármel-lék, Révfülöp, Balatonszepezd, Tapolca-Plébániakert(Bánffy 2004.334–344). The Nitra Basin groups wereunlikely to have invented pottery making on theirown; a more likely possibility is that they adoptedthis innovation together with other elements of theNeolithic package from groups on the fringes of theStar≠evo distribution, or rather from those groupsborn from the (intermarriage) mixing of southernimmigrants and indigenous groups. It would seemthat as a result of the cultural influences affectingTransdanubia, the indigenous groups inhabiting thenorthern part of the Little Hungarian Plain, too, triedtheir hand at pottery making.

In a recent study, Petrasch (2001) examined the pro-blem of the Linear Pottery ‘homeland’ from a demo-graphically. According to his estimates, northernTransdanubia, south-west Slovakia, the Burgenlandand Lower Austria, could at the most have had a po-pulation of five thousand at the dawn of the Neoli-thic. Petrasch concluded that this region was moreprobably the first stop in the Linear Pottery expan-sion, rather than its point of departure. He also no-ted that Linear Pottery probably evolved in the Zalaand Bakony region and the southern part of the areaaround Lake Fertő, i.e. western Transdanubia (Pe-trasch 2001.17).

Most recently, it occurred also east of the Danubethat assemblages very similar to those from Buda-pest-Aranyhegyi Road have been found. Apart fromvery dense settelment in the developed LBK phases,the site at Galgahévíz contained pottery fragmentsof the oldest LBK phase (Kalicz, Kalicz-Schreiber2002.29–30). Similarly, the oldest LBK vessel profilecomes from Ipolydamásd, unfortunately a surfacefind (Torma 1993.111, site 9/4 and Pl. 1). Even with

the help of these scattered finds it is not possible toanswer questions about Neolithisation in north-eastTransdanubia. These data, on the contrary, raisesome new questions about the hypothetical contactsof Transdanubian LBK and the Late Mesolithic/EarlyNeolithic of the Jászság area, and also possible con-nections to the Szatmár II group, i.e. the earliest LBKin the Mátra-Bükk fringes of the Alföld.

When contrasting this peculiar phenomenon to theintensive Körös occupation of the Southern part ofthe Duna-Tisza heartland, which suddenly stoppedsouth of the Jászság, a very new model of variousNeolithisation types start to form. Certainly, muchmore data will be necessary even to make the ques-tions more adequate, not to speak of the answers.

The possible causes of the differences

The first and most adequate answer for the differentmodes of Neolithic transition, in other words, Neoli-thisation models within a rather small geographicalarea, could be found in the different ratios and com-munication with local tribes (Fig. 7). There are tworegions, the Drava Valley and the fringes of the Al-föld at the Bükk-Mátra Mountains, where intensiveSouthern immigration dominated over the possibleindigenous population, whose participation in theNeolithic package was weak. The Jászság area repre-sents the other pole, according to our present know-ledge. Here the indigenous groups are clearly pre-sent, but it seems that the real Körös sites, as wellas transitional settlements that could represent con-tacts between the groups of different subsistence, arescarcely present. We found two regions: WesternTransdanubia, including Lake Balaton and the north-eastern edge of the Alföld (the Nyírség), where it ishighly probable that indigenous foragers came intocontact with Star≠evo groups in the first case, andCris groups, in the second case. There are no realideas as yet about the Neolithisation process in thenorth-eastern Transdanubian and the Budapest area,including the problem that the sporadic earliestTransdanubian (Central European) LBK sites are geo-graphically very close to the Jászság, but this onlycompounds the problem. The second type of answershould be sought in the ecological barrier hypothesis(Sümegi, Kertész 2001, Sümegi, Kertész, Hertelen-di 2002). In spite of the total misunderstanding va-luations of this idea (Makkay 2003.34–37), this hy-

5 In contrast to the few dozen sherds categorized by Pavúk, Ottó Trogmayer examined tens of thousands of pottery fragments andwas still unable to establish the internal chronology of the Körös culture (Trogmayer 1968). The lack of an internal chronologyfor the Körös culture is one of the great debts of Hungarian prehistoric research. M. Cladders’ analyses of Linear Pottery wares yiel-ded a similar result: in her opinion the differences can be traced to regional, rather than chronological differences (Cladders 1995).


135

pothesis about a Central European Agro-EcologicalBarrier (CEB AEB) is not a frontier dividing the twogroups of different subsistence modes from eachother. On the contrary, this barrier means that theclimatic situation would make the migration of Bal-kan farmers increasingly slower, until reaching anarea in which for some species of the Neolithic pack-age, including floral and faunal elements, it becamehard or impossible to survive. Such species could bee.g. caprinae (sheep and goat) in the Western Trans-danubian Atlantic climate, where in the wet winters,with high and long-lasting snow; short-legged ani-mals would sink into the snow, dying before thespring of pneumonia and other disease. This allmeans that people who migrated from the Southwould have had to stop or move north or west muchmore slowly than earlier. This is the negative im-pulse. The ecological barrier also has a positive im-pact on the Neolithisation process. This lies in thelonger time spent in one area, thus making it pos-sible for small indigenous to come into closer per-sonal, cultural and exchange contacts with the new-comers. A typical area for this longer-lasting processis the Balaton region, where co-existence is shown byseveral direct and indirect archeological and otherevidence (Bánffy 2000b; 2004; 2005).

A further, significant difference in the Neolithic tran-sition can be observed between the two major re-gions, the Transdanubian and the East Hungarian,Alföld area. This difference can be more easily ob-served when examining their persistence in the Mid-dle Neolithic, which was caused by divergent modesof Neolithisation. During the whole life of the LBK,the distribution area remained roughly the same in

the East, with no extension during the developedphases: from the Tisza to the Körös River regionsand the Partium. The process in Transdanubia wasjust the opposite. Within a few generations, 80–120years, the Transdanubian early LBK groups, i.e. a ge-netic and cultural mixture of indigenous foragers andBalkan farmers, had occupied a vast area covering amajor part of Europe between the Paris Basin andsouth-east Poland. There must be diverse strategieshidden behind these major differences.

The eastern group chose an inceasingly intense set-tlement pattern, and agriculture that led to the for-mations of real tell settlements. This process musthave happened together with an intensifying socialstratification, hereditary social ranking, the inten-sive development of symbols and ritual life, and pra-ctically with the formation of a pre-urban societyvery similar to the Near Eastern model. Not unimpor-tantly, it shows considerably more complexity thanthe economy of the previous periods. Agriculture,stock breeding played the main role, and, accordingto the social rank that must have been formulatedby the Late Neolithic, all these activities must havebeen organised to a formerly unknown level.

The Alföld Linear pottery groups had every opportu-nity to exploit their rich soils and they were also ina position to develop intensive exchange relation-ships with their eastern neighbours. In other words,they were able to keep their settlements flourishingwithout migrations. This could be a prime reason forintensive internal expansion and social developmentwithout any changes in the Alföld distribution area.Thus, the Alföld region may have had the function of

a “central site” from the Middle to theLate Neolithic. Nevertheless, this pro-cess seems to have had an end in itsgestation stage (Bánffy 2002). The up-permost layers on numerous tell settle-ments show clearly how the moundswere abandoned at the dawn of theCopper Age (roughly around 4400 BC).

In Transdanubia, the keys to finding areason behind the rapid distributionof the Western LBK are probably long-distance exchange and cultural con-tact. The causes behind the expansionand the survival of the contact net-works may have been based on simi-lar reasons, but the position of Trans-danubia was determined by the lackof the Alföld conditions on the one

Fig. 7. Key areas of studying the neolithic transition within Hun-gary. Regions marked in yellow: stronger Körös/Star≠evo impact;regions marked in blue: stronger Pre-Neolithic impact.

Eszter Bánffy

136

hand, some pressing contingencies and waves of mi-gration on the other.

The expansion into the heartland of Central Europewas so rapid that it left no typological differences inthe archaeological record (Quitta 1960; 1971), norcan the successive phases be pinpointed with radio-carbon dates (Gläser 1991; Lenneis, Stadler, Windl1996; Bánffy, Oross in press). One obvious explana-tion was to invoke rapid population growth for thisswift expansion, based on the examples from the an-cient Near East. In his quoted study on the demogra-phic data for the Early Neolithic, Petrasch shatteredany illusions about this theory, arguing that earlyLBK population growth could have been no morethan 0.1 per cent (Petrasch 2001.18).

Another probable explanation is offered by Anthony,when he writes of some positive triggers for migra-tion, such as low population density, fertile soil, pro-ximity to water, good climate etc. (Anthony 1992.898). ‘Push’ forces, such as over-population or clima-tic deterioration, can be rejected in the case of theLBK expansion. In contrast, there is evidence foreach of the “pull” forces. If exchange relations canalso be created and maintained, an area of this typeusually attracts settlers. “Migration is a social strat-egy” (Anthony 1997.22). Justifying this idea, the evi-dence for communication and contact networks be-tween Transdanubia and the regions to its northwestcan be reflected e.g. in the presence of Szentgál ra-diolarite in Moravia, and in Germany, being only mo-dest indications of these networks in the archaeolo-gical records. Since there had to be a mutual interestforming the basis of these contact relations, the pre-historian would search for something the early Trans-danubian farmers could be in need of, since north ofBosnia there is no source of salt in the whole region(Tasi≤ 2000.39). This is not to say that the commo-dity in return may not have been salt. This idea oc-curs when examining the Bad Nauheim-Niedermör-len settlement north of Frankfurt/Main (Schade-Lin-dig 2002a; 2002b). The finds from this site reflectedsurprisingly strong ties with Transdanubia. Bad Nau-heim lies in an area rich in salt. Saile argues for theearly Neolithic exploitation of salt mines in Westpha-lia and Lower Saxony (Saile 2001. 150–151). It istherefore possible that this easily transportable andvaluable commodity, essential to diet, for food pre-servation, and for animal husbandry, was exchangedfor various articles from the Danube valley.

One could certainly object that the rich salt area atHallstatt near Salzburg in the Upper Austrian region

lies much closer. However, the distribution of EarlyNeolithic sites indicates that the migration routeled along the northern Danube bank, through theMunich basin to southwest Germany. In this way,the salt mines in Hallstatt were unknown and canthus be rejected as a possible source. LBK communi-ties of Transdanubia sought to acquire salt from re-gions with which they were familiar, in part as a re-sult of their pre-Neolithic contacts, and in part fromthe knowledge acquired during their primary migra-tions – in other words, from the northwest. This pro-bably enhanced the importance of the Wetterau andAldenhoven region.

In spite of the many differences, some similarity canalso be noted between Neolithization in Transdanu-bia and the Upper Tisza region. It has been repeat-edly noted that riverside settlements in the area be-tween the Great Hungarian Plain and the mountai-nous region to its north acted as a kind of ‘market-place’ for the interaction: the possible co-existenceand mixing of groups with different lifestyles duringdifferent periods of the Neolithic and the Copper Agein Hungary (Kalicz 1994; Raczky et al. 1994; Bánffy1999). In this respect the northern Alföld fringes re-semble western Transdanubia and the Balaton re-gion, where interaction between different groupswas stimulated by the trade in Szentgál radiolarite.In the Northern Mountain Range, the most valuableraw materials were limnoquartzite from the MátraMountains and obsidian from Tokaj. The stone toolsfound on early Alföld Linear Pottery sites and alsoon Körös sites were predominantly manufacturedfrom these two rocks (Kalicz-Makkay 1976.23; Star-nini 1994; 2000; 2001; Biró 2001; 2002b; Maxim1999). If we accept the Mesolithic presence in themountains, it is not to exclude the possibility thatthese precious raw material sources were controlledby these groups both in Transdanubia and in theNorthern Mountain Range, and that the main causeand incentive for the interaction was the trade inthese lithics. The indigenous groups presumably re-ceived Neolithic technologies in exchange for the li-thic raw material in the Great Hungarian Plain, too,similarly to the situation assumed for Transdanubia.

In this sketch of the Mesolithic-Neolithic transitionand early Neolithic formations, which appeared sodifferently in small regions within Eastern and West-ern Hungary, it seems that working hypotheses withquestion marks are more numerous than answers.Nevertheless, beforehand there were hardly any que-stions put. This stage is, in my opinion, a step for-ward that reflects the present state of research.


137

ANTHONY D. W. 1992. Migration in archaeology: the babyand the bathwater. American Anthropologist 92/4: 895–914.

1997. Prehistoric migration as social process. In J.Chapman, H. Hamerow (eds), Migrations and Inva-sions in Archaeological Explanation. British Archaeo-logical Reports S664. Oxford: 21–32.

BÁCSKAY E. 1976. Early Neolithic Chipped Stone Imple-ments in Hungary. Dissertationes Archaelogicae 4. Bu-dapest.

1982. A magyar holocénstratigráfia régészeti dokumen-tációs pontjai a Dunántúlon. (Archaeological documen-tary sites of Hungarian holocene stratigraphy in Trans-danubia). A Magyar Állami Földtani Intézet jelentéseaz évről (Annual Report of the Geological Institutefor the year) 1980: 543–552.

BÁCSKAY E., BIRÓ K. 1983. Kőtelek-Huszársarok 8. gödörkőeszköz-anyaga (Questions on the transition between theearly and middle neolithic in the Middle and Upper Tiszaregion. Appendix. The lithic material). Archaeologiai ér-tesitő 110: 192.

BAKAY K., KALICZ N., SÁGI K. 1966. Magyarország régé-szeti topográfiája (Archaeological Topography of Hun-gary) 1. A keszthelyi és a tapolcai járás. (The Keszthelyand the Tapolca district). Budapest.

BÁNFFY E., BIRÓ K., VADAY A. 1997. Újkőkori és rézkoritelepnyomok Kompolt 15. sz. lelőhelyen (Neolithic andChalcolithic finds from Kompolt, site Nr. 15). Agria 23:19–57.

BÁNFFY E. 1999. Újkőkor, rézkor (Neolithic and Chalco-lithic). In Vaday A., Bánffy E., Bartosiewicz L., Biró K., Go-galtan F., Horváth F., Nagy A. (eds.), Kompolt-Kistér: új-kőkori telep. Újkőkori, bronzkori, szarmata és avar le-lőhely. Leletmentő ásatás az M3 nyomvonalán (A Neo-lithic, Bronze age, Sarmatian and Avar site. Rescue ex-cavation at the M3 motorway). Eger: 13–170.

2000a. Szilvásvárad-Töröksánc. A Bükki-kultúra leletei(Szilvásvárad-Töröksánc. Finds of the Bükk culture).Agria 35: 85–92.

2000b. The late Star≠evo and the earliest Linear Potterygroups in Western Transdanubia. In M. Budja (ed.), 7th

Neolithic Studies. Documenta Praehistorica 27: 173–185.

2002. A stuck process: urbanisation in the CarpathianBasin. In K. Jones-Bley, D. G. Zdanovich (eds.), Com-plex Societies of Central Eurasia from the 3rd to the

1st Millennium BC. Regional specifics in light of glo-bal models. JIES monograph 45. Washington D.C.:492–503.

2004. The 6th Millennium BC boundary in WesternTransdanubia and its role in the Central Europeantransition (The Szentgyörgyvölgy-Pityerdomb settle-ment). Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 15.

2005. Mesolithic – neolithic contacts, as reflected in ri-tual finds. In M. Budja (ed.), 12th Neolithic Studies.Documenta Praehistorica 32: 77–86.

BÁNFFY E., OROSS K. in press. The “oldest” and the “older”phase of the LBK in Transdanubia. Römische-Germani-schen Zentralmuseums Mainz Tagungen, Band 2. Mainz.

BÁNFFY E., JUHÁSZ I., SÜMEGI P. in press. A prelude tothe Neolithic in the Balaton region – new results to an oldproblem. In Atti della Società per la Preistoria e Proto-storia della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, XVI.

BERZSÉNYI B., DÁLNOKI O. 2006. Archaeobotanikai vizs-gálatok – a Szentgyörgyvölgy–Pityerdomb (Zala megye)neolit korú lelőhely földmintáinak elemzése (Archaeobo-tanical investigations of the soil samples from the neoli-thic site Szentgyörgyvölgy-Pityerdomb, County Zala). In E.Bánffy (ed.), Archaeology and Settlement History in theKerka Valley, South-West Hungary. Antaeus 28: 261–270.

BIRÓ K. 1991. Mencshely-Murvagödrök kõanyaga (Thelithic assemblage from Mencshely-Murvagödrök). TapolcaVMK 2: 51–60.

2001. Lithic materials from the Early Neolithic in Hun-gary. In R. Kertész and J. Makkay (eds.), From the Meso-lithic to the Neolithic. Proceedings of the InternationalArchaeological Conference held in Szolnok 1996. Ar-chaeolingua 11: 89–100.

2002a. Balatonalmádi–Vörösberény – Lithic materialin the Transdanubian LBC site. In E. Bánffy (ed.), Pre-historic Studies. In memoriam I. Bognár-Kutzián.Antaeus 25: 119–168.

2002b. Advances in the study of early neolithic lithicmaterials in Hungary. In E. Bánffy (ed.), PrehistoricStudies. In memoriam I. Bognár-Kutzián. Antaeus25: 237–241.

2006, in press. Újabb adatok a Star≠evo-kultúra kőanya-gához: Tihany-Apáti. New data to the lithic material ofthe Star≠evo culture: Tihany-Apáti. Ősrégészeti Levelek– Prehistoric Newsletter 7.

DOBOSI V. 1972. Mesolithische Fundorte in Ungarn – Me-zolithikus lelőhelyek Magyarországon. In J. Fitz (ed.), Ak-

REFERENCES

Eszter Bánffy

138

tuelle Fragen der Bandkeramik. Akten der PannoniaKonferenzen 1: 39–60.

CLADDERS M. 1995. Die Tonware der ältesten Bandkera-mik. Unterschung zur zeitlichen und räumlichen Gliede-rung. PhD dissertation, University of Frankfurt/Main 1995.

CSENGERI P. 2003 (2001). Adatok a Bükki-kultúra kerá-miaművességének ismeretéhez. A Felsővadász-várdombitelepülés leletanyaga (Data to the pottery of the Bükk cul-ture archaeological finds from the settlement at Felsőva-dász-Várdomb). Hermann Ottó Múzeum Évkönyve 40:73–105.

2004. Adatok a Cserehát őskori településtörténetéhez(Data to the prehitoric settlements of the Cserehát). InE. Nagy, J. Dani and Zs. Hajdú (eds.), MΩMOS II. De-brecen: 43– 59.

CSERNY T. 1999. Environmental geological investigationsof Lake Balaton (Hungary). A Magyar Állami Földtani In-tézet jelentése az évről. Annual Report of the GeologicalInstitute for the year 1992–93: 131–137.

CSERNY T., NAGY-BODOR E. 2006. Geological-palynologi-cal research at the fothills of Alps. In E. Bánffy (ed.), Ar-chaeology and Settlement History in the Kerka Valley,South-West Hungary. Antaeus 28: 155–174.

DOMBORÓCZKI L. 1996. The excavation at Füzesabony-Gubakút. Preliminary report. In R. Kertész, J. Makkay(eds.), From the Mesolithic to the Neolithic. Proceedingsof the International Archaeological Conference held in theDamjanich Museum of Szolnok, Sept. 22–27, 1996. Arheo-lingua 11. Budapest: 193–214.

1997. Füzesabony–Gubakút. Újkőkori falu a Kr. e. VI.évezredből (Neolithic village from the 6th MillenniumB.C.) In P. Raczky, T. Kovács, A. Anders (eds.), Utak amúltba. Az M3–as autópálya régészeti leletmentései.Paths into the Past. Rescue excavations on the M3Motorway. Budapest: 19–25.

2001. Településszerkezeti sajátosságok a középső neo-litikum időszakából, Heves megye területéről (Charac-teristics of settlement patterns in the middle phase ofthe New Stone Age from the area of Heves County. InMΩMOS I. Debrecen: 67–94.

2003. The radiocarbon data from Neolithic archaeolo-gical sites in Heves County (North-Eastern Hungary).Agria 39: 5–76.

2005. A Körös-kultúra északi elterjedési határának pro-blematikája a Tiszaszőlős-Domaháza-pusztán végzettásatás eredményeinek fényében (The problem of theNorthern extension of the Körös culture in the light ofthe excavation results from Tiszaszőlős-Domaháza. Ar-

chaeometry Workshop, e-journal published by the Hun-garian National Museum 2005(2). On-line www.ace.hu

EICHMANN W. J., KERTÉSZ R., MARTON T. in press. Meso-lithic in the LBK heartland of Western Hungary. Römische-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz Tagungen, Band 2.Mainz.

FÜZES M. 1989. A földmívelés kezdeti szakaszának (neo-litikum és rézkor) növényleletei Magyarországon. (Archeo-botanikai vázlat) Die Pflanzenfunden in Ungarn der an-fänglichen Entwicklungsphase des Ackerbaues (Neolithi-kum und Kupferzeit) Archäobotanische Skizze. TapolcaVMK 1: 139–238.

GÁBORI M. 1981. Az ősember korának kutatása Magyaror-szágon (1969–1980) (Researching the period of AncientMan in Hungary). Papers from the II. class of the HASc.:99–109.

GÁL E., JUHÁSZ I., SÜMEGI P. (eds.) 2006. Environmen-tal Archaeology in North-Eastern Hungary. Varia Archa-eologica Hungarica 19.

GLÄSER R. 1991. Bemerkungen zur absoluten Datierungdes Beginns der westlichen Linienbandkeramik. Banatica11: 53–64.

GRONENBORN D. 1999. A variation on a basic theme: Thetransition to farming in Southern Central Europe. Journalof World Prehistory 13(2): 123–210.

HORVÁTH F. 1989. A survey on the development of neo-lithic settlement pattern and house types in the Tisza re-gion. In S. Bökönyi (ed.), Neolithic of Southestern Europeand its Near Eastern Connections. Varia ArchaeologicaHungarica 2: 85–101.

HORVÁTH I., KELEMEN M., TORMA I. 1979. Magyarországrégészeti topográfiája (Archaeological Topography ofHungary) 5. Esztergom és a Dorogi Járás. Budapest.

JUHÁSZ I. 2002. The palynographic reconstruction ofthe Late Glacial and the Holocene periods of CountyZala, South West Hungary (Reconstruction palynogra-phique de Tardiglaciaire et de l’Holocene de la régionde Zala, Sudouest de la Hongrie). PhD dissertation, Uni-versities of Marseille–Pécs.

2006, in press. The pollen sequence from Balatonede-rics. Palaeoenvironmental studies in the Balaton Up-lands. In I. Juhász, P. Sümegi and C. Zatykó (eds.), En-vironmental Archaeology in Transdanubia. Varia Ar-chaeologica Hungarica 20.

JUHÁSZ I., SÜMEGI P., ZATYKÓ C. (eds.) 2006, in press.Environmental Archaeology in Transdanubia. Varia Ar-chaeologica Hungarica 20.


139

KALICZ N. 1993. The early phases of the neolithic in We-stern Hungary (Transdanubia). Poro≠ilo o raziskovanjupaleolitika neolitika in eneolitika v Sloveniji 21: 85–135.

1994. Wenden des Spätneolithikums im Oberen Theiß-gebiet. Józsa András Múzeum Évkönyve, Nyíregyháza36: 263–290.

KALICZ N., KALICZ-SCHREIBER R. 2002. Die Verbreitungs-grenze der frühneolithischen Kulturen in Transdanubien(Westungarn). Preistoria Alpina 37: 25–44.

KALICZ N., KOÓS J. 1997a. Mezőkövesd–Mocsolyás. Újkő-kori telep és temetkezések a Kr. e. VI. évezredből (Neoli-thic 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 intothe Past. Rescue excavations on the M3 Motorway. Buda-pest: 28–33.

1997b. Eine Siedlung mit ältestneolithischen Hausres-ten und Gräbern in Nordostungarn. In M. Lazi≤ (ed.),Antidóron. Completis LXV annis Dragoslavo Srejovi≤ab amicis collegis discipulis oblatum. Centre for Ar-chaeological Research/University of Belgrade, Facultyof Philosophy 17: 125–135.

KALICZ N., S. KOÓS J. 2000. Település a legkorábbi újkő-kori sírokkal Északkelet-Magyarországról (Eine Siedlungmit ältestneolithischen Gräbern in Nordostungarn). Her-man Ottó Múzeum Évkönyve 39: 45–76.

KALICZ N., MAKKAY J. 1972. Probleme des frühen Neoli-thikums der nördlichen Tiefebene. Alba Regia 12: 77–92.

1976. Frühneolithische Siedlung in Méhtelek-Nádas.Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts6: 13–24.

1977. Die Linienbandkeramik in der Großen Unga-rischen Tiefebene. Studia Archaeologica VII.

KALICZ N., M. VIRÁG ZS., BIRÓ K. 1998. The northern pe-riphery of the early neolithic Star≠evo culture in south-western Hungary: a case study of an excavation at LakeBalaton. In M. Budja (ed.), 5th Neolithic Studies. Docu-menta Praehistorica 25: 151–187.

KALICZ N., RACZKY P. 1981. The precursors to the “hornsof consecration” in the Southeast European Neolithic. ActaArchaeologica Hungarica 33: 5–20.

KALICZ-SCHREIBER R., KALICZ N. 1992. Die erste frühneo-lithische Fundstelle in Budapest. In M. Gara∏anin, D. Srejo-vi≤ (eds.), Hommage à Nikola Tasi≤. Balcanica 23: 47–76.

KALICZ N., T. BIRÓ K., M. VIRÁG ZS., 2002. Vörs, Mária-asszony-sziget. In Z. Bencze et al. (eds.), Régészeti kutat-

ások Magyarországon 1999 (Archaeological investiga-tions in Hungary 1999). Budapest: 15–26.

KERTÉSZ R. 1994a (1996). The Mesolithic in the GreatHungarian Plain: A survey of the evidence. In R. Kertészand J. Makkay (eds.), At the Fringes of Three Worlds.Hunter-gatherers in the Middle Tisza valley. Szolnok:5–39.

1994b. Late Mesolithic chipped stone industry fromthe site Jásztelek I (Hungary). In G. Lőrinczy (ed.), Akőkortól a középkorig. Von der Steinzeit bis zum Mit-terlalter. Studien zum 60. Geburtstag von Ottó Trog-mayer. Szeged: 23–44.

KERTÉSZ R., SÜMEGI P. 1999. Teóriák, kritika és egy mo-dell: miért állt meg a Körös-Star≠evo kultúra terjedése aKárpát-medence centrumában? (Theories, critiques and amodel: why did the expansion of the Körös-Star≠evo cul-ture stop in the centre of the Carpathian Basin?). Tisicum11: 9–23.

KURUCZ K. 1989. A Nyíri Mezőség neolitikuma [The Neo-lithic of the Mezőség, Nyírség region]. Nyíregyháza 1989.

KUTZIÁN I. 1944. A Körös-kultúra (The Körös Culture).Dissertationes Pannoniae II/23. Budapest.

LENNEIS E. 1997. Houseforms of the Central European Li-near Pottery culture and the Balkan early neolithic – acomparison. Poro≠ilo o raziskovanju paleolitika neoli-tika in eneolitika v Sloveniji 24: 143–149.

2000. Hausformen der mitteleuropäischen Linearband-keramik und des balkanischen Frühneolithikums imVergleich. In St. Hiller, V. Nikolov (eds.), Karanovo III:Beiträge zum Neolithikum in Südosteuropa. Wien:383–388.

LENNEIS E., STADLER P., WINDL H. 1996. Neue 14C-Datenzum Frühneolithikum in Österreich. Préhistoire Europé-enne 8: 97–116.

LICHARDUS J. 1972. Zur Entstehung der Linearbandkera-mik. Germania 50: 1–15.

LOSITS F. 1980. Neolithische Siedlung in Krasznokvajda.Folia Archaeologica 31: 7–34.

MAKKAY J. 1970. A kőkor és a rézkor Fejér megyében.(The stone age and the copper age in County Fejér.) Fe-jér megye története I./1. Székesfehérvár.

1978. Excavations at Bicske. I. The Early Neolithic –The earliest Linear band Ceramic. Alba Regia 16: 9–60.

1982. A magyarországi neolitikum rendszere és fej-lődésének főbb vonásai (The system of the Hunga-

Eszter Bánffy

140

rian Neolithic and the main features of its develop-ment). Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest

2003. Ősrégészeti kutatások magyarországon – az újkő-kor és a rézkor (Prehistoric archaeology in Hungary inrecent years. The Neolithic and the Copper Age). JósaAndrás Múzeum Évkönyve, Nyíregyháza 45: 27–60.

MAXIM Z. 1999. Neo-Eneoliticul din Transilvania. Mini-sterul Culturii Muzeul National de Istorie Transilvaniei.Bibliotheca Musei Napocensis 19.

MEDZIHRADSZKY 2001. The holocene sequence of Ke-szthely-Úsztatómajor, Hungary. Annales Historico-Natu-rales Musei Nationalis Hungarici 93: 5–12.

MEIER-ARENDT W. 1989. Überlegungen zur Herkunft derlinienbandkeramischen Langhauses. In S. Bökönyi (ed.),Neolithic of Southestern Europe and its Near EasternConnections. International Conference Szolnok-Szeged1987. Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 2: 183–189.

MÉSZÁROS Gy. 1948. A Vázsonyi-medence mezolit- ésneolitkori települései (The mesolithic and neolithic set-tlements in the Vázsony Basin). Veszprém.

NAGY E. Gy. 1998 (1995–96). Az Alföldi Vonaldíszes ke-rámia kultúrájának kialakulása (Die Herausbildung derAlfölder Linearbandkeramik I–II). Déri Múzeum Évkő-nyve: 53–150.

2005. Adatok az alföldi vonaldíszes kerámia kultúrá-jának településtörténeti képéhez a Felső-Tisza-vidé-ken [Data to the settlement history of the Alföld LBKin the Upper Tisza region]. PhD thesis, Budapest,ELTE, Institute of Archaeology.

NAGY-BODOR E. 1988. A Balaton pannóniai és holocénképződményeinek palynológiai vizsgálata (Palynologicalstudy of Pannonian and holocene deposits from Lake Ba-laton). A Magyar Állami Földtani Intézet jelentése az év-ről (Annual Report of the Geological Institute for theyear) 1986: 535–568.

PAUL I. 1995. Aspekte des Karpatisch-Balkanisch-Donaulän-dischen Neolithikum (Die Präcris-Kultur). In Vorgeschicht-liche Untersuchungen in Siebenbürgen. Alba Iulia: 28–68.

PAVÚK J. 1962. Gliederung der Volutenkeramik in derSlowakei. πtudijné zvesti 9: 5–20.

1972. Neolithisches Gräberfeld in Nitra. Slovenská Ar-cheologia 20: 5–105.

1980a. Ältere Linearkeramik in der Slovakei. Sloven-ská Archeologia 28: 7–90.

1980b. Problem der Genese der Kultur mit Linearkera-mik im Lichte ihrer Beziehungen zur Star≠evo-Cris Kul-tur. In J. Kozłowski and J. Machnik (eds.), Problèmesde la néolithisation dans certaines régions de l’Eu-rope. Actes du colloque international Kraków-Mogilany1979. Wroclaw: 163–174.

1994. Zur relativen Chronologie der älteren Linearke-ramik. Nyíregyházi Józsa András Múzeum Évkönyve36: 135–149.

PETRASCH J. 2001. “Seid fruchtbar und mehret euch undfüllet die Erde und machet sie euch untertan”: Überlegun-gen zur demographischen Situation der bandkeramischenLandnahme. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 31:13–25.

PUSZTAI R. 1957. Mezolitikus leletek Somogyból (Mesoli-thische Funde im Komitat Somogy). A Janus PannoniusMúzeum évkönyve: 95–105.

QUITTA H. 1960. Zur Frage der ältesten Bandkeramik inMitteleuropa. Praehistorische Zeitschrift 38: 1–38; 153–188.

1971. Der Balkan als Mittler zwischen Vorderem Orientund Europa. In F. Schlette (ed.), Evolution und Revo-lution im Alten Orient und im Europa. Das Neolithi-kum als historische Erscheinung. Berlin: 38–63.

RACZKY P. 1977. Szajol-Felsőföld (ásatási jelentés). Ar-chaeologiai Értesitő 104: 263.

1983. A korai neolitikumból a középső neolitikumbavaló átmenet kérdései a Közép- és Felső-Tiszavidéken(Questions of transition between the Early and MiddleNeolithic in the Middle and Upper Tisza region). Ar-chaeologiai Értesitő 110: 161–194.

1986. Megjegyzések az “alföldi vonaldíszes kerámia”kialakulásának kérdéséhez [Remarks on the questionof the formulation of the “Alföld Linear Pottery” cul-ture]. In Németh Péter (ed.), Régészeti tanulmányokKelet-Magyarországról. Folklór és Etnográfia 24. De-brecen: 45–59.

1988. A Tiszavidék kulturális és kronológiai kapcso-latai a Balkánnal és az Égeikummal a neolitikum,rézkor időszakában. Újabb kutatási eredmények ésproblémák [The cultural and chronological connec-tions of the Tisza region with the Balkan and Aegeanat the time of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic. Recentresearch results and problems]. Szolnok.

RACZKY P., MEIER-ARENDT W., KURUCZ K., HAJDÚ ZS.,SZIKORA Á. 1994. A late neolithic settlement in the UpperTisza region and its cultural connections (Preliminary re-


141

port). Józsa András Múzeum Évkönyve, Nyíregyháza 36:231–240.

REGENYE J. 2006, in press. A Star≠evo-kultúra településea Tihanyi-félszigeten (A Star≠evo culture settlement onthe Tihany peninsula – Lake Balaton, Western Hungary).Ősrégészeti Levelek – Prehistoric Newsletter 7.

SAILE TH. 2001. Salz im Ur- und frühgeschichtlichen Mit-teleuropa – Eine Bestandaufnahme. Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommision 81: 129–234.

SCHADE-LINDIG S. 2002a. Idole und sonderbar verfüllteGruben aus der bandkeramischen Siedlung “Hempler” inBad Nauheim–Niedermörlen. In H.-J. Beier (ed.), VariaNeolithica II: Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte Mit-teleuropas 32: 99–115.

2002b. Idol- und Sonderfunde der bandkeramischenSiedlung von Bad Nauheim–Niedermörlen “Auf demHempler” (Wetteraukreis). Germania 80: 47– 114.

SIMON K. 1994. Frühneolithische Kultgegenstände beiGellénháza, Kom. Zala. In G. Lőrinczy (ed.), A kőkortól aközépkorig. Von der Steinzeit bis zum Mittelalter. Stu-dien zum Geburtstag von O. Trogmayer. Szeged: 53–65.

1996. Ein neuer Fundort der Star≠evo-Kultur bei Gel-lénháza (Kom. Zala, Ungarn) und seine südliche Be-ziehungen. In F. Drasovean (ed.), The Vin≠a culture,its role and cultural connections. Museum BanaticumTemesiense, Timisoara: 59–92.

2002. Das Fundmaterial der frühesten Phase der Trans-danubischen Linienbandkeramik auf dem Fundort Zala-egerszeg-Andráshida, Gébárti-tó, Arbeitsplatz III. In E.Bánffy (ed.), Prehistoric Studies in memoriam I. Bog-nár-Kutzián. Antaeus 25: 189–203.

STADLER P. 2005. Settlement of the Early Linear CeramicsCulture at Brunn am Gebirge, Wolfholz site. In M. Budja(ed.), 12th Neolithic Studies. Documenta Praehistorica32: 269–278.

STARNINI E. 1994. Typological and technological analysisof the Körös culture stone assemblages of Méhtelek-Nádasand Tiszacsege (North East Hungary). A preliminary re-port. Józsa András Múzeum Évkönyve, Nyíregyháza 36:101–110.

2000. Stone industries of the early neolithic cultures inHungary and their relationships with the mesolithicbackground. Quaderno. Società Preistoria ProtoistoriaFriuli-Venezia Giulia 8: 207–219.

2001. The Mesolithic/Neolithic transition in Hungary:the lithic perspective. In R. Kertész and J. Makkay(eds.), From the Mesolithic to the Neolithic. Proce-edings of the International Archaeological Confe-

rence held in Szolnok 1996. Archaeolingua 11: 395–404.

SÜMEGI P. 1998. Az utolsó 15000 év környezeti változá-sai és hatásuk az emberi kultúrákra Magyarországon (En-vironmental changes in the last 15000 years and their im-pact to human cultures in Hungary). In G. Ilon (ed.), Arégésztechnikusok kézikönyve. Szombathely: 367–397.

1999. Reconstruction of flora, soil and landscape evo-lution, and human impact on the Bereg plain from lateglacial up to the present, based on palaeoecologicalanalysis. In J. Hamar and A. Sárkány-Kiss (eds.), TheUpper Tisza Valley. Tiscia Monograph Series, Szeged:173–204.

2003. Preneolitizáció – egy Kárpát-medencei, késő me-zolitikum során bekövetkezett életmódbeli változáskörnyezetrégészeti rekonstrukciója (Pre-neolitization –the environmental historical reconstruction of a changein lifestyle occurring during the late Mesolithic in theCarpathian Basin). In E. Nagy, J. Dani and Zs. Hajdú(eds.), MΩMOS II. Debrecen: 21–32.

SÜMEGI P., GULYÁS S. (eds.) 2004. The Geohistory of Bá-torliget Marshland. An Example for the Reconstructionof Late Quaternary Environmental Changes and PastHuman Impact from the Northeastern Part of the Car-pathian Basin. Archaeolingua 16: 2004.

SÜMEGI P., KERTÉSZ R. 2001. Palaeogeographic characte-ristics of the Carpathian Basin – an ecological trap duringthe Early Neolithic? In R. Kertész and J. Makkay (eds.),From the Mesolithic to the Neolithic. Proceedings of theInternational Archaeological Conference held in Szolnok1996. Budapest: 405–415.

SÜMEGI P., KERTÉSZ R., HERTELENDI E. 2001. Environ-mental change and human adaptation in the Carpathianbasin at the Late Glacial/Postglacial transition. In E. Je-rem, K. T. Biró (eds.), Archaeometry. 98. proceedings ofthe 31st symposium Budapest, April 26 – May 3. 1998. Ar-chaeolingua Central European Series 1 – British Archaeo-logical reports IS 1043. Oxford: 171–177.

TASI≥ N. 2000. Salt use in the Early and Middle Neolithicof the Balkan Peninsula. In L. Nikolova (ed.), Technology,Style and Society. Contributions to the innovations be-tween the Alps and the Black Sea in prehistory. BritishArchaeological reports IS 854. Oxford: 35–40.

TORMA I. (ed.) 1993. Magyarország régészeti topográ-fiája (Archaeological Topography of Hungary) 9. A Szobiés a Váci Járás. Budapest.

TROGMAYER O. 1968. A Körös-csoport barbotin kerámiá-járól (The “barbotine” pottery of the Körös group). Ar-chaeologiai Értesitő 95: 6–12.

Eszter Bánffy

142

WHITTLE A., BARTOSIEWICZ L., BORI≥ D., PETTITT P., RI-CHARDS M. 2002. In the beginning: New radiocarbondates for the early neolithic in Northern Serbia and SouthEast Hungary. In E. Bánffy (ed.), Prehistoric Studies. Inmemoriam Ida Bognár-Kutzián. Antaeus 25: 63–117.

WILLIS K. J., SÜMEGI P., BRAUN M., TÓTH A. 1995. Thelate Quaternary environmental history of Bátorliget, N–EHungary. Palaeogeography, Paleoclimatology, Palaeo-ecology 118: 25–47.

ZOFFMANN Zs. 2000: Az Alföldi Vonaldíszes Kerámia Fel-sővadász-Várdomb lelőhelyén feltárt kettős temetkezésé-

nek embertani leletei. Herman Ottó Múzeum Évk 39:103–115.

ZÓLYOMI B. 1980. Landwirtschaftliche Kultur und Wand-lung der Vegetation. Phytocoenologia 7: 121–126.

ZVELEBIL M. 1986. Mesolithic prelude and neolithic revo-lution. In M. Zvelebil (ed.): Hunters in Transition. Cam-bridge University Press. Cambridge 1986: 5–15.

2000. The social context of the agricultural transitionin Europe. In C. Renfrew and K. Boyle (eds.), Archaeo-genetics: DNA and the population of Europe. McDo-nald Institute monographs. Cambridge: 57–79.

Documents

Bánffy 2006 Eastern Central and Western Hungary variations of neolithisation models