2010 Domboroczki L. - Raczky P. Excavati PDF

NEOLITHIZATION OF THE CARPATHIAN BASIN: NORTHERNMOST DISTRIBUTION OF THE STAREVO/KRS CULTURE
KRAKW
2010
EXCAVATIONS AT IBRNY AND THE NORTHERNMOST

DISTRIBUTION OF THE KRS CULTURE
EXCAVATIONS AT IBRNYNAGYERD AND THE NORTHERNMOST

DISTRIBUTION OF THE KRS CULTURE IN HUNGARY
Lszl Domborczki, Pl R aczky
ABSTRACT: The most important result of the archaeological investigations at Ibrny was that, finally, archaeological excavations could be carried out to offer first-hand evidence of the Krs Culture in the Hungarian section
of the Upper Tisza Region. It may be considered a fact now that agencies of the Krs Culture also connected
to Transylvania reached the environs of Tokaj, that is, they may have had direct, physical access to resources of
obsidian in this area. Topographic research at the site of Ibrny has shown that a small settlement of a community
was found who practiced early food production. In its fully developed form this must have been a small, farmstead-like cluster of 25 houses. The dimensions of the excavated refuse pit and the low intensity of settlement
show that in comparison with settlements in the southern section of the Great Hungarian Plain the inhabitants
of this site pursued a more mobile way of life. The comprehensive study of various classes of artifacts is indicative of even seasonal occupation.
Moreover sites of the Upper Tisza Region in Hungary and in the Ukraine as well show that the first expansion of neolithic lifeways in this broader region is associated with the Krs Culture more exactly its variant, the
Cri Culture in Transylvania. It also became clear that the previously perceived absence of Krs Culture sites
in the Upper Tisza Region should not be explained by the resistance of local populations. Settlements of two
different types of the Krs Culture appear in this region. One advanced from the south of the Great Hungarian
Plain toward the north, while the other spread toward the south along the Upper Tisza valley. Physical features of
these settlements changed under a diversity of internal and external factors in this area that may be considered a
marginal zone in many senses.
A short research history of the Early Neolithic in the Upper Tisza Region
During the past decade, especially after the 2003 discovery of the site at TiszaszlsDomahza-puszta, researching the northernmost distribution of the Krs Culture gained a new momentum (Domborczki 2005; in
press; Domborczki et al. 2010). Verifying excavations at another site, Nagykr, located on the right bank of
the Tisza river in 2003 have exposed the same problem in the international literature (Raczky et al. in press).
Since the unquestionable northern frontier of the Krs Culture had long been considered the KunhegyesBe-
192
Fig. 1. Distribution of Early Neolithic sites in the Upper Tisza Region (after Lazarovici, 1984; Maxim 1999; Kovcs 2007a;
2007b; Liviu, Szcs 2007; Hg 2008; Domborczki 2009; Kozowski, Nowak 2007; Kalicz in press; Raczky et al. in press)
Sites of the Krs Culture: 1 Berettyjfalu-Nagy Bcs-dl/HU; 2 Besenyszg-Szrpuszta-rtr/HU; 3 Ecsegfalva
23/HU; 4 Furta-Cst/HU; 5 Ktelek-Huszrsarok/HU; 6 Nagykr-Cooperative Orchard (Tsz-gymlcss)/HU; 7
Szajol-Felsfld/HU; 8 Szentpterszeg-Krtvlyes/HU; 9 Szolnok-Szanda/HU; 10 Tiszagyenda-Garahalom/HU; 11
Tiszaszls-Domahzapuszta/HU; 12 Tiszapspki-Karancspart-Hromg/HU; 13 Trkeve-Csrg/HU
Uncertain site of the Krs Culture: 14 Telekhza/HU
Sites of the Cri Culture Mhtelek group: 15 Berea II. (Bere)/RO; 16 Berehovo-Kerekhegy (Beregszsz-Kerekhegy)/
UA; 17 Clinesti-Oa (Knyahza)/RO; 18 Cehlu (Magyarcsaholy)/RO; 19 Ciumeti (Csomakz)/RO; 20 Cubulcut
(rkblkt)/RO; 21 Fnyeslitke/HU; 22 Fughiu (Fugyi)/RO; 23 Galopetreu (Glospetri)/RO; 24 Homorodu(l) de Sus
(Felshomord)/RO; 25 Ibrny-Nagyerd/HU; 26 Medieu Aurit (Aranyosmeggyes)/RO; 27 Mhtelek-Ndas/HU; 28
Mica (Tzmiske)/RO; 29 Nagyecsed-Pterzug/HU; 30 Picolt (Piskolt)/RO; 31 Por (Porc)/RO; 32 Remetea Oaului
(Remetemez)/RO; 33 Rivne-Kismez (Szernye-Kismez)/UA; 34 Suplacu de Barcau (Berettyszplak)/RO; 35 Tanad
(Tasnd)/RO; 36 Tiszabezdd-Servpa/HU; 37 Urziceni (Csanlos)/RO; 38 Valea lui Mihai (rmihlyfalva)/RO; 39
Vad (rvasad)/RO; 40 Zastavne-Mala Hora (Zpszony-Kishegy)/UA; 41 Zuan (Szilgyzovny)/RO
Uncertain sites of the Mhtelek group: 42 Paszab-Felmeszelt tag/HU; 43 Rakamaz-Uferabbruch (collapsed riverbank)
/HU
Obsidian sources: Carpathian I, Carpathian II, Carpathian III
Excavations at IbrnyNagyerd and the northernmost distribution of the Krs Culture in Hungary
193
Fig. 2. IbrnyNagyerd. Result of field survey carried out on the site in 2008: I distribution of daub; II distribution of
stone; III distribution of ceramic; IV distriution of bone; V assumed settlement features of the Krs Culture under the
surface with the place of test trench cross the point of KL
rettyjfalu line across the Great Hungarian Plain, the sheer location of the Tiszaszls settlement provoked
heated discussions: it was discovered 30 km north of this line. Consequently, the distributions of the Krs Culture and the so-called Szatmr II group of ceramic style considerably overlapped in the Upper Tisza Region.
In the meantime, additional arguments and research results (summarized in: Kozowski 2005; Kozowski, No
wak 2007; Kaczanowska, Kozowski 2008) have brought into question historicist interpretations that proposed
either the resistance of an elusive mesolithic population or the existence of an agro-ecological barrier along the
KunhegyesBerettyjfalu line. It had been supposedly these that prevented the northward spread of the Krs
Culture (summarized in: Kalicz, Makkay 1972, 77, 80; 1977b, 20; Smegi, Kertsz 1998, 154157; Kertsz,
Smegi 1999, 1719; Kertsz, Smegi 2001, 235239; Kertsz 2002, 289291; Makkay 1996, 4143; 2001a,
6164; 2003, 3442; 2007, 199200). These developments made it necessary to re-consider existing conventional wisdom and a new, comprehensive approach to the problem became likewise necessary (Domborczki
2009, 114118; Bnffy 2009).
From the research at Tiszaszls and Nagykr, especially concerning the analysis of obsidians recovered,
it was possible to discern that Krs Culture sites spread along the entire stretch of the Tisza River, all the way
to the Tokaj hill. We therefore feel this must have been a link of decisive importance through which obsidian
has reached the main area of the Krs Culture in the southern section of the Great Hungarian Plain (as summarized by Kaczanowska, Kozowski 2007, 13; Bir 2007, 72). That is, the distribution of this valuable raw
material in the south (i.e. within a Krs context) was not mediated by a hypothetical mesolithic population
(summarized: Mateiciucov 2004, 98, Fig. 8; 2007, 712716, Fig. 31.10). North of the Szolnok area, however, smaller rather than larger Krs settlements, consisting of little more than one or two houses and pits, were
A
Fig. 3. IbrnyNagyerd: A the excavated test trench from the south; B the excavated Krs pit in the extended surface round the test trench
194
195
B
Fig. 4. IbrnyNagyerd: the plan (A) and cross sections (B) of the excavated Krs pit
likely to have existed. It was supposed that these are to be found on the higher-lying banks of rivers and their
backwaters, whether at the exact location or on the immediate vicinity of the younger Szatmr sites (Raczky
1983; Kovcs 2007a, 4147). Meanwhile, it has also been hypothesized that the Mhtelek-Homorodu de Sus
variant of the Krs Culture has also reached the Tokaj region, advancing from the Upper Tisza Region. That
is to say, the two variants of the Krs Culture met in that region (as summarized by Domborczki in press;
Raczky et al. in press). Both of these variants engaged in early food production. It seems quite evident that they
avoided the island-like sand backs of the Nyrsg region and rather utilized elevations within the floodplain of
the Tisza River (Fig. 1). The peripheral character of these settlements is also shown by their sparse settlement
pattern, not comparable to the density of sites in the southern section of the Great Hungarian Plain (the newest
results summarized by Kovcs 2007a, 48; Domborczki in press; Raczky et al. in press; Kozowski, Nowak
2007, 8593, Fig. 7: 17). On the basis of the data available, the mosaic-like zone of the Upper Tisza Region,
stretching between Szolnok and Mhtelek was defined as an ecological-mental marginal zone during the
Early Neolithic (Raczky et al. in press). As far as early neolithic culture change is concerned even R. Kertsz
and P. Smegi have recently outlined a broader Carpathian Basin Neolithic Adaptation Zone (CABAN
AZ), around the previously proposed Central European-Balcanic Agroecological Barrier (CEB AEB),
aline that supposedly divided the Carpathian Basin between north and south (Kertsz 2002, 290292, Fig.2,8;
196
Fig. 5. IbrnyNagyerd. Distribution of the shards in the stratigraphic sequence of the plans with a 1 1 m grid system of
the Krs pit: A fine ware; B coarse ware
Smegi 2007, 4950, Fig. 4.1). Recent research at Tiszaszls and Nagykr has already directed attention to
a broader alluvial area defined by the Upper Tisza, Szamos, Tr, Kraszna and Szernye Rivers, as well as the
so-called rmellk region. The early neolithic population of this broad area that practiced Balkan-type early
food production may be considered fundamental in the local emergence of Alfld Linear Pottery Culture
(ALPC) (Domborczki in press; Raczky et al. in press; Kozowski, Nowak 2007, Fig. 4.1). This larger entity
that formed at the beginning of the Middle Neolithic became known under different names (Szatmr II ALPC
1 Piskol 1 proto Kopany) is characterized by the occurrence remarkably homogeneous assemblages in
the northeastern part of the Carpathian Basin (for a recent summary see: Kovcs 2007b, 3136; Kaczanowska,
Kozowski 2008, 912; Kozowski, Nowak 2007, Fig. 7.1)
Field project on the Upper Tisza Region and the site of IbrnyNagyerd
between 2004 and 2008
Following these antecedents, missing links, that is sporadically occurring Krs settlements were first
sought during 2004 in non-inundated areas along the banks of the Tisza river north of Kunhegyes (Fig. 1). Using old maps in order to avoid regions modified by large scale river regulations such as dams built during the
197
Fig. 6. IbrnyNagyerd. Horizontal and vertical re-fits of the shards in the Krs pit represented in the 1 1 m grid system
19th century as well as recently inhabited sections, two days of intensive field walks were carried out proceeding northwards from the town of Tiszafred (Domborczki 2005, 910).
The first high banks geographically similar to the environment of the Krs Culture settlement of Tiszaszls
were found in the outskirts of Telekhza near the village of Egyek. Intensive accumulations of riverine mussel shell, typical of Krs Culture settlements in the Great Hungarian Plain were detected over a 50100 m
long surface. Unfortunately, heavily fragmented shards encountered sporadically did not include characteristic Krs Culture types. Moreover, the owner of the land did not give his consent for excavations therefore we
were forced to carry out field surveys further north along the edge of the Tisza floodplain.
We did not carry out systematic field walks but rather spot-checked areas that were of hypothetical importance. First we intended to survey the environment of Tokaj as lithic raw material from this important source
has regularly been found at Krs Culture sites toward the south (summarized in: Bcskay, Simn 1987;
Starnini, Szakmny 1998; Kaczanowska, Kozowski 2007; Mateiciucov 2007, Fig. 31.10, Table 31.28). Unfortunately, as of today, the right (west) bank of the Tisza river has been almost completely occupied by housing developments around Tokaj. Across from Tokaj Hill, however, a natural high bank was preserved on the east bank,
198
east of the city of Rakamaz. It includes the outskirts of Timr, Szabolcs and Balsa villages and is extended all the
way to Gvavencsell. This bank runs in the immediate proximity of the river, more exactly one of the oxbows
formed by the Tisza. This high bank turns towards the south east of the village of Gvavencsell, and only a few
of its eastern stretches reach the present-day bed of the Tisza River. As we reach the Rtkz area, stretches of the
northernmost non-inundated surfaces may be found in the outskirts of Paszab and Ibrny (Fig. 1).
During the field survey in March 2004 we first noticed the high bank near Tmr village in the neighborhood of Rakamaz. This spot has long been known as an s-szemtdomb ancient refuse dump or Uferabbruch collapsed riverbank elsewhere in the archaeological literature (among others: Jsa 1892, 205207;
Banner 1932, 2930, 4546; Kalicz, Makkay 1977b, Fundkatalog: No. 318 on page 151). At this point shards
and dispersed mussel shell, potentially attributable to the Krs Culture, were immediately found. However,
later periods of the Neolithic have also been represented in this area, interfering with the eventual localization
of the early site.1 Encouraged by this discovery, however, we began following the high bank towards the northeast. Collapsed sections of the bank observed along the current bed of the Tisza River are indicative of intensive modern-day erosion that should be considered a negative phenomenon as it hinders spotting Krs Culture sites.
The surface becomes far flatter east of Gvavencsell, the first smaller elevations and banks in the former
extensive Tisza floodplain occur in the outskirts of Paszab and Ibrny. Thanks to this topographic phenomenon, it would have been unnecessary to build dams here during the 19th century, therefore chances of discovering Krs Culture sites here would have been best. Following a day of wandering around in the area of
IbrnyNagyerd we indeed found a mound that once had been located on the southern edge of the Tisza
floodplain. Several shards with pinched decoration recovered from this surface were a general indication of a
deposit characterized by the stylistic features of Krs Culture (Domborczki 2005, 9, Fig. 1). However, a research permit for this area was not issued by the Directorate of Museums in Szabolcs-Szatmr-Bereg County
during 2004.
Never-the-less, finds recovered during this field walk raised considerable interest and stimulated a revision
of potential Krs Culture finds in the Jsa Andrs Museum (Nyregyhza). On the basis of this work it could
be established that the texture of shards recovered in Ibrny shows a close similarity with vessels brought to
light at the site of MhtelekNdas during 19721973 (summarized in: Kalicz, Makkay 1977a; Makkay 2007,
199205; Makkay, Starnini 2008, Fig. 340357; Kalicz in press). The first impression therefore was that connections point toward the Mhtelek stylistic group or the Cri Culture, the local variety of Krs Culture in
Transylvania, northwestern Romania. The same link has been reconfirmed by finds recovered at Nagyecsed
Pterzug (Kalicz, Makkay 1977b, Fundkatalog: No. 270 on page 146, Taf. 1.117, Taf. 2.125) and TiszabezddServpa (Kalicz, Makkay 1977b, Fundkatalog: No. 400 on page 165, Taf. 3.115). Although the latter
have only been collected during canalization works in 1962, in contrast to the latest opinion by Jnos Makkay
(Makkay 1996, footnote 13), they may be undoubtedly linked with the early neolithic stylistic sphere of Mh
telek. During our visit to the Nyregyhza Museum several previously published finds (Kalicz, Makkay 1977b,
Fundkatalog: No. 299 on page 149) could be re-evaluated from Paszab,2 the village next to Ibrny (the name
of this site was first given as PaszabFelmeszelt tag but was later modified to PaszabFelnmet tag). On the
basis of these observations it may be stated that these ceramics carry marked technological characteristics of
Krs Culture pottery.
Shards collected near Paszab seem to have undoubtedly reconfirmed the presence of Krs Culture ware
in this region. Unfortunately the Paszab site itself could not be identified during subsequent field walks due
to difficulties of surface observation. However, accepting the suggestion made by N. Kalicz (Kalicz in press),
even the assemblage of pottery recovered during the excavation of the Copper Age cemetery of Fnyeslitke
may be considered a representative of the Mhtelek stylistic sphere (Kalicz, Makkay 1972, 78, Abb. 11.11
18). Thus, including all previous discoveries, five sites in the Upper Tisza Region may be attributed to the Early Neolithic.
Finds from this field survey have been deposited in the Jsa Andrs Museum, Nyregyhza.
Nndor Kalicz, an active participant of both the survey and museum revisions has directed our attention to finds from previous
field walks (1618 April, 1963) by Katalin Melis of the Archaeological Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.
2
199
11
10
Fig. 7. IbrnyNagyerd. Selected vessel fragments from the Krs pit
200
7
8
11
9
10
12
201
7
8
11
10
12
13
202
10
11
12
15
13
14
16
Fig. 10. IbrnyNagyerd. Selected vessel fragments and spindle whorls from the Krs pit
17
203
204
205
11
9
10
12
14
13
15
Fig. 13. IbrnyNagyerd. Decorated vessel fragments from the Krs pit
16
206
Fig. 14. Ibrny-Nagyerd. Fragments of big storrage vessels from the Krs pit
207
The excavation of the Ibrny site discovered in 2004 was ultimately decided following another field survey
in March 2008, when spring tillage has again brought characteristic Krs Culture finds, stone chips and fish
bones onto the surface. With support by the local museum in charge of the site, first intensive field walks were
carried out in May 2008 in the area of the find spot. After the evaluation of these data, a nine days long excavation campaign revealed a small Krs Culture refuse pit at the site.
Surface survey for assessing features at the site of IbrnyNagyerd in 2008

In 2008, the primary aim of the research at Ibrny was data gathering. We wanted to acquire a sufficiently large assemblage that originated from a verified archaeological context, proving the presence of the Krs
Culture in the Upper Tisza Region. As is well known, prior to this project, no well-documented Krs Culture
find material was available in Hungary west of Mhtelek and north of Tiszaszls. In a broader context, the archaeological evidence of a Krs Culture settlement in the Upper Tisza Region is of decisive significance from
the viewpoint of the aforementioned theoretical discussions.
Field walks in May 2008 were designated to delineating a section of the settlement where at least one feature associated with the Krs Culture could be identified. This aim was pursued by using a one square meter
grid system during the course of surface collection. Fortunately, this work could be carried out in the young
sunflower plantation that covered the area that spring.
A 3 by 3 squares grid consisting of 10 by 10 m squares each was outlined over the area where tillage revealed archaeological finds. Five squares in this grid system, totaling 500 m2 were subjected to additional surface collection.3 Various categories of artifacts were packaged by single square meter units and color coded for
mapping on location. This resulted in a summary plan in which finds were registered by types and numbers in a
coordinate system. Digitized data subsequently provided a basis for creating spatial density maps (Fig. 2). The
dispersion of the surface ceramic, stone and bone finds and pieces of house rubble were indicative of roughly
3features under the surface, of which the pit with the most numerous bone fragments appeared to be the best
locus for an excavation. Comparing the distribution maps of various artifact categories it becomes visible that
the highest density of surface finds was concentrated near point KL in the map, within a circle of 23 m radius. It looked probable therefore that a feature containing major quantities of artifacts was located below the
surface humus layer. As can be seen on the final excavation plan, we positioned fairly well our first trench an
found indeed the pit we wanted, although its longer axis was somewhat different from the expected direction.
The Ibrny excavations were continued in late June, 2008 by opening a 6 m long test trench oriented north
to south along the KL point (Fig. 3: A, Fig. 15).4
Excavation on the site in 2008 and the ceramic finds from the Early Neolithic pit
Already during the first phase of field work the detail of a presumably early neolithic pit was successfully
identified within a 6 1 m test trench. The profile of the section made it clear that the upper section of this pit
ended at some 2035 cm below the modern surface in a homogeneous humus layer. However, the outline could
not be precisely located in the sandy, rather homogeneous fill. The central section of the fill was composed
of dark sooty humus. This may have been formed by the considerable amount of decaying organic material
which in some cases even coloured the surface of the ceramics, giving them a painted-like character (Fig. 10:
1617). In reality, however, this was a result of secondary discoloration. Interestingly enough, the dark fill
contained the baulk of the finds too. Meanwhile we learned that during the 1970s, a 2530 cm thick layer of
humus had been bulldozed from the surface of this natural elevation toward the flood zone within the framework of inundation control works. It is for this reason that the outlines of archaeological features were exposed
Herewith we would like to acknowledge the help by Mrton Szilgyi and Jzsef Danyi in field work.
Grateful thanks are due to the owner of the area, Balzs Demeter and Emil Kbli, head of the Rkczi Agricultural Cooperative,
Ibrny, who most kindly helped with procuring official permits as well as with practicalities of the field work.
4
208
Fig. 15. IbrnyNagyerd. Reconstruction of the Krs site in its geographical setting based on the distribution of all surface
finds with the place of the excavation
and the traces of prehistoric human activity became clearly visible on the surface. Evidently, however, subsequent tillage in the area disturbed the modern surface to a depth of 3040 cm, causing some mixing between
periods in the top strata of the archaeological deposit. It is important to mention in this regard that the remains
of destroyed Tiszapolgr Culture burials as well as sporadic Early Bronze Age shards were also detected at the
site. Anthropogenic disturbance secondary to early neolithic occupation thus cannot be ruled out in the uppermost section of the investigated pit, although no visible evidence of intrusion could be recognized.
The complete excavation of the pit (Fig. 3: B, Fig. 4: AB) was carried out in a 1 1 m grid system following 15 and 20 cm deep stratigraphic units (Fig. 5). This resolution made the fine-grain evaluation of the
material possible. A total of 2259 shards came to light from the pit, 435 of which could be categorized as fine
and 1120 as coarse ware. An additional 704 pieces were so heavily fragmented and poorly preserved that they
could not be assigned to even these gross categories. The distribution of fine and coarse ware across the strati
graphy shows the greatest concentration between the depths of 25 to 60 cm below the surface, near the middle
of the pit (Fig. 5). The re-fits of fine and coarse ceramics established during the course of restoration work were
plotted onto the layout of stratigraphic units. The resulting image revealed that matching fragments of coarse
ware outline two depositional events at depths of 040 cm and 40114 cm respectively (Fig. 6): Meanwhile,
associated shards from fine ware are scattered within the range of 2560 cm depth. These phenomena may be
seen as three phases of refuse accumulation, whose sequence can be reconstructed even without the evidence
of visible strata. When radiocarbon data obtained for the pit are considered, the two younger dates (550040bp
209
Fig. 16. IbrnyNagyerd. The result of surface survey for the reconstruction of the Krs sites extent with the two supposed
house rows in NE-SW direction
and 552040 bp) originate from the regions of 2540 cm and 4060 cm depths. It seems therefore, that the
lowermost border zone of more recent contamination may have been at the depth of 60 cm. (Aside from this
interpretation, the validity of the radiometric measurement based on a shard is also problematic since the delivered sample definitely represented typical Krs Culture pottery.)
Early neolithic ceramics recovered at the site are most similar to those known from Mhtelek in terms of
style, form and decoration. The first petrograpic analysis of the Ibrny shards was carried out by Attila Krei
ter, whose prompt help is gratefully acknowledged here. In summary, his results show that on the basis of the
fine-grained temper, pottery technologies used in Ibrny and Mhtelek are quite similar to each other in comparison with the Alfld type of Krs Culture sites towards the south (see the detailed results in this volume
by A. Kreiter).
Meanwhile, reference shards from the site of Nagykr, representing archetypical Krs Culture ceramics
from the Great Hungarian Plain, show a different composition. As Kreiter has pointed out, the mode of manufacture characteristic of the pottery from both Mhtelek and Ibrny differs from those of Krs and Starevo
contexts. At the same time, it is important to emphasize that in all these types organic temper (vegetal tempering material, probably chaff) may be clearly identified on all these shards, and the so-called sandwich-like
structure is also uniformly characteristic of their cross sections. This shows that the ceramics in question were
all fired at a low, 700750C temperature, very rarely reaching 850C. According to Gy. Szakmny, E. Starnini, M. Spataro and D. Gheorghiu these features seem to confirm a great temporal homogeneity in the ceramic technology, within the StarevoKrs Cultures (among others: Szakmny et al. 2004; Szakmny, Starnini 2007; Starnini 2008; Spataro 2003; 2008; 2009; Gheorghiu 2008, 172175; 2009, 5). This in turn is indicative of a traditionally structured, stable technological complex in Early Neolithic pottery manufacturing in the
210
Balkans (Nikolova 2007). Ceramic finds from the sites of Mhtelek and Ibrny may also be evaluated within
the framework of this phenomenon, although with the declining use of organic temper new types of fabric appeared in the latter archaeological contexts.
The formal typology of fine ware at Ibrny was characterized by the open bowl with flat base or low
pedestal (Fig. 7). In any case, the development of carinated bowls (Knickwandschsseln) within the Krs
stylistic inventory should be considered a young phenomenon (summarised by Oross 2007, 505506, Fig. 27.
14. 13; Schier 1997, 158159, Abb. 12; Makkay, Starnini 2008, Fig. 1: types IA1 IA5), a fact that may
be of stylistic dating value at the site of Ibrny (Fig. 8: 1, 3, 46). Globular bowls with distinct rims and lowcollar jars are likewise new characteristics that, although present in both Ibrny (Fig. 9, Fig. 10: 16, 11) and
Mhtelek (among others: Makkay, Starnini 2008, Fig. 342. 2, 5, 6, 9, Fig. 343. 1, Fig. 344. 1, Fig. 345. 1, 2, 4,
8, 9 etc.) are not typical of the general style of the Krs Culture (Oross 2007, 507, Fig. 27. 21. 12, Fig. 27. 23.
4). However, several, slightly crude versions of such specimens came to light at Ibrny (Fig. 11, Fig. 12). The
direct rim varieties of both fine and coarse ware may be rather seen as the most typical stylistic features
of Szatmr II type assemblages in the Upper Tisza Region at the beginning of the Middle Neolithic (among
others: Kalicz, Makkay 1977b, Taf. 5.117, Taf. 11.118; Nagy 1998, Table 16.15, Table 30.1, 3, Table 37.
111 etc.). The pinched decoration, the spike motif as well as the finger and nail impressions are used on both
fine and coarse ware in Ibrny (Fig. 10: 4, 6, 89, 11, Fig. 13, Fig. 14: 3), however 90% of the ceramic material is undecorated. Due to erosion, in many cases not even the original surface treatment of the ceramics can
be observed. In any case, it is interesting that applied barbotin, channeled barbotin, Schlickwurf and plastic
decoration all occur relatively rarely in the Ibrny ceramic assemblage (Fig. 8: 611). Coarse pottery, represented by large, egg-shaped jars at this site, also tends to be undecorated (Fig. 14: 12). Only a few specimens
have ornamental pinching on their surfaces (Fig. 13: 1, 9). Remains of a poor quality red slip could be detected
on the outer surface of three shards (Fig. 10: 1315). It is very important to note that there were only three
pottery fragments bearing incised linear decoration in the ceramic assemblage excavated at Ibrny (Fig.8:
3, 12, Fig.10: 2). This could mean that the site doesnt represent the relevant predecessor of the early ALPC
trajectory in the Upper Tisza Region, but is a variant of local early neolithic developments.
Two slightly conical shaped clay spindle-whorls represent special neolithic activities in the settlement area:
the production of thread and/or yarn (Fig. 10: 10, 12).
The preliminary evaluation of these stylistic characteristics seems to indicate that the Mhtelek material
may be considered the closest parallel to the pottery types brought to light during the Ibrny excavations. The
majority of forms, as well as the technology of production somewhat differs from the traditional style characteristic of the Krs Culture in the Great Hungarian Plain. The artifactual assemblage from this site therefore suggests that the Mhtelek variety of Krs type ceramics occurred on the left bank of the Tisza river in
the physical proximity of Tokaj hill during the Early Neolithic. The clearest evidence for this is provided by
obsidian fragments recovered from the pit excavated at Ibrny. Consequently, it may also be said that the socalled Mhetelek-facies/Fazies (Kalicz, Makkay 1977a, 19), recently outlined by Nndor Kalicz (Kalicz in
press), may have been the cultural antecedent to the Szatmr II/ALPC (Alfld Linear Pottery Culture = Alfld
Linearbandkeramik Kultur (ALBK) Whittle 1996, 146). This possibility also seems to be supported by the
evidence of radiocarbon dates so far obtained.
In addition, an important terminological question is also highlighted by the anthropomorphic figurines occurring within the Mhtelek and Szatmr II cultural contexts. According to several authors, including S.Hansen
and N. Kalicz, parallels to the oblong-shaped and steatopygic figurines characteristic of Mhtelek (Makkay,
Starnini 2008, Fig. 31.17, Fig. 32.16, Fig. 33.110) are typical of the KrsCriStarevoKaranovo III
cultural environments in the eastern Balkans (Kalicz, Makkay 1977a, 19; Hansen 2007, 143, Abb. 56; Kalicz
in press). In addition, cognitive and mental characteristics of the First Temperate Neolithic may be recognized
behind these types of representation (Raczky, Anders 2003, 162). In this regard, both Mhtelek and Ibrny
may be considered part of the FTN cultural environment of the Early Neolithic. Therefore the term ProtoLinear Phase may not be considered the best term in identifying this stylistic phenomenon (Kaczanowska,
Kozowski 2008, 1516). Another argument within this context is the example of anthropomorphic figurines
and face-decorated vessels known from Szatmr II/ALBK I contexts (e.g. FzesabonyGubakt and TiszavalkNgyes). Human faces on this type of pottery have been decorated with and arched, incised pattern.
These symbolic signs remained decisive in similarly a canonized form for at least 300400 years in the ALBK
211
distribution area in the Great Hungarian Plain, and survived until the formation of the Bkk-Tiszadob-Esztr
stylistic sphere. This means that the emergence of the visual canon so characteristic of the ALBK, together
with its ideological/mental system may first be recognized in the Szatmr II cultural environment (Raczky,
Anders 2003, 158171). According to this approach, the Szatmr II style may be considered the beginning of
the ALPC bound development around approximately 5600 cal BC. This is best shown by the general distribution of linear patterns so characteristic of the ALPC that paralleled the aforementioned tendencies in the Upper
Tisza Region and the reaches of the Szamos, Hernd and Saj rivers as well as smaller creeks located toward
the west (Csincse, Knya and Lask). This area may be considered a marginal zone from the viewpoints of
both the Krs Culture of the Great Hungarian Plain and its varieties in western Romania, namely the regions
of Partium and Transylvania beyond. This special position must have multiplied the pressure of circumstances
by which economic and cultural changes were generated in the area.
Surface survey for the reconstruction of the early Neolithic sites extent
at IbrnyNagyerd in 2009
After our successful fieldwork for finding an early Neolithic feature and the excavation of it, but already in
the spring of 2009 we made an extended survey of the wider area and registered both the geographical conditions and the find dispersion on the surface. As our maps show, the Krs settlement was situated on the high
bank of an inundation area (Fig. 15). It was located on one of the highest elevations there and the find dispersion followed the elongated form of the plateau. It must be mentioned that we had information from the local
people about a leveling activity in the 1970s when roughly 3040 cm was taken off the surface of the mound
in order to reduce the difference in height and facilitate agricultural works (i.e. ploughing the area with machines). Meanwhile the ancient riverbed stretching along the north-western edge of the site was filled in as it
had been regularly flooded by the Tisza River during the spring and the autumn. While this leveling activity
may have caused large scale find loss and at the same time the decades of ploughing resulted in mixing even
the lower layers. However, the leveling activity contributed to the characteristic appearance of the find material on the present surface creating better conditions for the field survey.
As we have collected all kinds of material (mostly ceramics) on the surface during the course of the intensive field survey, we measured their position with a GPS work station.5 As can be seen, there are no clear dispersion patterns observable in our site plan. This is why some kind of filter as well as accentuation on the data
had to be applied, in order to make their evaluation possible. In addition to the Krs Culture shards, surface
finds also included sporadic remains from the Copper Age Tiszapolgr Culture. In addition, finds representing
the Early and Middle Bronze Age were also encountered. Finally, Sarmatian settlement remains from the Roman Imperial Period further confused field observations.
It seems, that on the 80 by 60 m large surface covered by finds, there could be two settlement rows, in NESW
directions, in which the early Neolithic features are located in a rectangular pattern with their long axes oriented NWSE (Fig. 16). The early Neolithic houses were lying probably somewhere in between the registered features. The settlement probably existed for a relatively long time. As it may be judged from the style
of shards already recovered during field walks, habitation at this site may have ended by the end of the Krs
Culture.
During the time of excavation we also visited some frequented localities around the village of Ibrny within a 5 by 5 km territory, in order to find other Krs settlements. In this program we received a great support
from a local amateur archaeologist, Tibor Gosztonyi, who has already mapped for his rich exhibition the archaeological sites in the vicinity of Ibrny. One of his registered sites appeared to be very interesting from our
point of view as it has been yielded lots of chipped stone peaces and some interesting ceramics as well. In addition to this potential Krs Culture site on the edge of the Tisza floodplain, there are several other published
ALPC sites in the northern vicinity of Ibrny (Kalicz, Makkay 1977b, 134135, Fundkatalog: No. 150159
on pages 134135). Considering Krs Culture finds from Paszab kept in the Jsa Andrs Museum, Nyregy-
The measurements were taken and the resulting maps were put at our disposal by Gbor Mrkus whom we owe special thanks.
212
hza, as well as early ALPC I (Szatmr II) material from Rtkzberencs it may be hypothesized that intensive
neolithization in the western zone of the Rtkz region began with the infiltration of Krs Culture from the
direction of Tiszabezdd. Neolithization came into full fruition during the ALPC period, more-or-less at the
middle of the 6th millennium BC.
Conclusions
1. The most important result of the archaeological investigations at Ibrny was that, finally, archaeological
excavations could be carried out to offer first-hand evidence of the Krs Culture in the Hungarian section of
the Upper Tisza Region. It may be considered a fact now that agencies of the Krs Culture also connected to
Transylvania reached the environs of Tokaj, that is, they may have had direct, physical access to resources of
obsidian in this area. Topographic research at the site of Ibrny has shown that a small settlement of a community was found who practiced early food production. In its fully developed form this must have been a small,
farmstead-like cluster of 25 houses. The dimensions of the excavated refuse pit and the low intensity of settlement show that in comparison with settlements in the southern section of the Great Hungarian Plain the
inhabitants of this site pursued a more mobile way of life. The comprehensive study of various classes of artifacts is indicative of even seasonal occupation.
2. Moreover sites of the Upper Tisza Region in Hungary (Paszab, Ibrny, Tiszabezdd, Mhtelek, Nagye
csed), the Ukraine (Zastavne, Rivne, Beregovo), as well as in Romania (Homorodu de Sus, Berea II, Ciumeti,
Clinesti-Oa, Remetea-Oaului, Por etc.) show that the first expansion of neolithic lifeways in this broader
region is associated with the Krs Culture more exactly its variant, the Cri Culture in Transylvania (recently summarized by Raczky et al. in press, Domborczki in press; Kalicz in press; Potushniak 2004, 53, 59, 62;
Maxim 1999, 2730; Liviu, Szcs 2007, 3032; Kaczanowska, Kozowski 2008, 12; Hg 2008). It also became clear that the previously perceived absence of Krs Culture sites in the Upper Tisza Region should not
be explained by the resistance of local populations (Makkay 2001a, 5962; 2001b, 1820; 2003, 3440; 2007,
199200). It is asserted here that the local Mesolithic population must have been unable to stop or fend off the
first Neolithic communities in the area, in part due to the hypothesized great difference between the densities of
these two populations. It was J. Makkay himself, who based on his analysis of criteria set in the works of T.H.
Van Andel and C.N. Runnels (1995) that there were no similar population densities in the late Mesolithic and the Early Neolithic in the given region (Makkay 1996, 4041). Consequently no interaction between
partners representing the two cultures by equal weights could be identified in the Tisza region during the first
half of the 6th millennium BC (as summarized by Kozowski 2005). Even hypothetical interactions between the
Mesolithic and Neolithic populations might have taken place only in the same physical plane, i.e. geographical
surface. The lack of interaction therefore should not be explained by the idea that The Mesolithic sites might
well lie concealed under the thick sedimentary layers (Makkay 1996, 40). Mesolithic settlements contemporaneous with those of the Krs Culture should logically be sought after on the level of the walking surface in
the latter, located usually 2550 cm below the modern surface. The existence of modern sediment selectively
concealing the local Mesolithic should thus be discounted. Recently, this problem has been discussed in detail several new summaries that all arrived to the same conclusion (among others: Kozowski 2005, 183185;
Kozowski, Nowak 2007, 8190; Kaczanowska, Kozowski 2008, 912).
3. Settlements of two different types of the Krs Culture appear in this region. One advanced from the
south of the Great Hungarian Plain toward the north, while the other spread toward the south along the Upper Tisza valley. Physical features of these settlements changed under a diversity of internal and external factors (Domborczki 2005, 511; Raczky et al. in press) in this area that may be considered a marginal zone in
many senses. In comparison with areas of the Krs Culture located more toward the south, settlements here
were more sparsely located and less intensively inhabited that makes their archaeological observation more
difficult in the northern section of the Great Hungarian Plain. (Naturally, as was correctly pointed out by J.
Makkay, within this area the difficulty of observation and recovery likewise holds true for mesolithic settlements). It is likely, however, that the lack of archaeological data indicative of the presence of the Krs Culture
in the Upper Tisza region was caused by the indubitable paucity of topographic information that also hampered
the proper theoretical reconstruction of various frontier zones. It must be noted here that interpretational differences between the concepts of boundaries, borders, frontiers and borderlands have recently been intensive-
213
ly discussed in archaeology: these terms are not synonymous with each other but form a well-defined system;
in principle, the Borderland matrix embodies the dynamic diachronic interaction between geographic, political, demographic, cultural and economic types of boundaries (Parker 2006). In fact, the marginal zone of
the Upper Tisza Region may be seen as a multivariate function of this boundary set. Having discovered a
new site of the Krs Culture along the Tisza River in a natural borderland area makes it necessary to revise
the exclusive territorial determination summarized in the concept of the agro-ecological barrier. It is suggested here that the geographical distribution of the Krs Culture as is known today is only partially determined by agro-ecological factors. The channels of communication represented physically by the Tisza and
its tributaries in the Great Hungarian Plain must have played a similarly important role in mediating cultural
influences forming a network of green corridors (Kertsz, Smegi 1999, Fig. 3). A. Sherratt (2005, 5562,
Fig. 5.1) has pointed out the prominent significance of such axial routes in the Fertile Crescent in mediating
the spread of farming. Several studies have already convincingly demonstrated the prominent significance of
river valleys in mediating the know-how of early food production in Southeastern Europe (Biagi et al. 2005,
47; Davison et al. 2006, 649650; Bocquet-Appel et al. 2009, 811813). Therefore the same role may be plausibly attributed to the Tisza River.
4. It is also an important observation that gaining access to obsidian resources of strategic importance
played a decisive role in expanding the area of the Krs Culture, i.e. populations characterized by the use of
pottery made in this style were trying to directly access this lithic source of vital significance from the viewpoint of its livelihood (summarized by Kozowski, Nowak 2007, 9093). This is most clearly shown by sites
in the Ukraine, whose sheer location may be clearly explained by the proximity of Carpathian III obsidian resources (Zastavne, Rivne and Beregovo; summarized by Rosania et al. 2008; Rcz 2008 and see the detailed
results in this volume by Zs. Mester and B. Rcz). This may also be clearly interpreted within the aforementioned concept of axial routes: While the image of moving frontier offers an adequate representation at
low levels of spatial resolution, higher magnification reveals a more detailed view in which a different
set of patterns predominates. Rather than resembling moving fronts, these have the linear forms of networks and routes linking sets of critical resources, and avoiding natural and human obstacles (Sherratt 2005, 61).
5. The group of pottery styles defined as IbrnyMhtelekHomorodu de Sus (Felshomord) is a rather
peculiar phenomenon in the Upper Tisza Region, markedly different from the Krs Culture style known from
the southern section of the Great Hungarian Plain (summarized by Makkay 2007, 199205, Fig. 126131; Kalicz in press). Stylistic features of certain vessel shapes as well as vessels standing on knobs refer to pottery
known from the Krs River region (Kalicz in press). On the basis of certain artifact types, especially idols, it
has for some time been suggested that these artifactual assemblages may be related to cultural representations
of the Eastern Balkans with parallels known from as far as eastern Bulgaria (Kalicz, Makkay 1977a, 19; Racz
ky, Anders 2003, 162; Hansen 2007, 143144, Abb. 56). Excavations at Mhtelek and Ibrny have indicated
that the cultural synthesis of the ALBK integrated more stylistic elements from the Krs Culture assemblages
of the Upper Tisza Region than from those in the southern section of the Great Hungarian Plain. This possibility is supported by the presence of black painted ware in addition to the quantities of obsidian raw material and
the occurrence of oblongbodied idols in Szatmr II find assemblages. Therefore using the term Proto-Linear Phase should be abandoned in the future regarding the characteristic finds from the IbrnyMhtelekHomorodu de Sus cultural entity: these characteristics show a fundamental connection with the Krs-Cri Culture (Kaczanowska, Kozowski 2008, 1516).
6. In light of the new data summarized here it seems increasingly plausible that, in accordance with earlier
hypotheses, the Krs Szatmr II ALPC cultural transition may have been stimulated by the migration of
agricultural communities who arrived here from the southern section of the Great Hungarian Plain and Transylvania respectively (Raczky 1983, 189; Sherratt 1982, 295297, Domborczki 2005, 1011; Kaczanowska,
Kozowski 2008, 12). Even today, the situation in the Upper Tisza Region is clearly illustrated in the 1982 map
by A. Sherratt (1982, Fig. 6).
Due to the geographical overlap between the Szatmr II group, that is the earliest ALPC and the Krs Culture the place and time of this transition may be defined within the broader environment of the Tokaj hill, along
the Tisza, Saj, Bodrog, Ondrava, Szernye, Szamos and Tr rivers (Kovcs 2007b, Fig. 2; Kozowski, Nowak
2007, Fig. 7.17).
214
This possibility is also supported by the first 14C dates provided by the Pozna Radiocarbon Laboratory:6
Bone from stratum 3:
Bone from stratum 40:
Fishbone from stratum 48:
Shard from stratum 54:
657040 BP (Poz-28214)
550040 BP (Poz-28215)
663040 BP (Poz-28216)
552040 BP (Poz-29282)7
5550 (68.2%)
4450 (83.0%)
5620 (68.2%)
4460 (93.1%)
5480 cal BC
4310 cal BC
5535 cal BC
4320 cal BC
Unfortunately, only half of the available measurements are indicative of proper Krs Culture dates, the
rest are rather characteristic of the Early Copper Age. The mixing between Krs Culture and Early Copper
Age finds is indicative of secondary disturbance in the pit, although as has been pointed out before this
was probably caused either by tillage or crotovinae. Some mixing between the finds is not at all surprising: the
Krs Culture and Early Copper Age (settlement and cemetery?) were located in each others proximity in the
area, almost overlapping with each other. As far as the two verifiable Krs Culture dates are concerned they
are closest to those known from Mhtelek (Bln-1332: 665560 BP), and this similarity is further confirmed by
similarities observed in the ceramic and lithic materials (Kalicz, Makkay 1977a, 23; Makkay 2007, 199205;
Kalicz in press).
7. On the basis of the radiocarbon dates from Ibrny and Mhtelek it seems likely that expansion into the
Upper Tisza Region took place during the late, if not terminal phase of the Krs Culture. Krs Culture
dates from Mhtelek and Ibrny (57705530 cal BC, and 56205470 cal BC respectively) are barely earlier that those of the Szatmr group from Fzesabony (56205470 cal BC), Mezkvesd (56205510 cal BC),
Tiszaszls (56205460 cal BC), and Ktelek (57205530 cal BC). Some may even coincide with the latter
(Domborczki 2009, 86, Fig. 7, 113, Fig. 20; 2005, 10, 12; Kalicz, Kos 2000, 68; 2002, 7475; Kaczanowska, Kozowski 2008, 1112; Raczky et al. in press). The sites of Nagykr (59905620 cal BC, Raczky et al.
in press) and Tiszaszls (58505620 cal BC, Pit No. 6: Domborczki 2005, 12) associated with Krs Culture sites in the southern section of the Great Hungarian Plain may be indicative of the relatively early date of
northward expansion. Although at this point the number of relevant 14C dates is relatively small, even these
few points offer an opportunity to outline the process of neolithization in the Upper Tisza Region (summarized
by Domborczki 2009, 114118). As a result of the recent summaries of the 14C dates for the Starevo and the
Krs Cultures a trend has become apparent whereby neolithic Cultures moved northwards from the Balkans
along the Tisza. The Starevo Culture crossed the Lower Danube (Donja-Branjevina, Topole Ba) around 6200
cal BC, while the Krs Culture appeared at the Maros River (PitvarosDeszkMaroslele) only in about 6000
cal BC. The Krs Culture only reached the branches of the Krs river (EndrdEcsegfalvaSzarvas) 100
150 years later and the latitude of Nagykr, Tiszaszls and Mhtelek in the north as late as 57705650 cal
BC (Whittle et al. 2002, 107110; Domborczki et al. 2010). Covering the approximately 180 km distance between the Maros Region and Tiszaszls (measured along the Tisza River) must have taken some 250 years
of the Krs Culture. This corresponds to a mean speed of 0.72 km/year in comparison for the estimated 1.2
km/year calculated for the rest of Europe (Davison et al. 2009, 1217 and Fig. 2), showing some deceleration,
in spite of the fact that the Tisza Region may be considered homogeneous from a topographic point of view.
Therefore other factors of the area, related to its marginal character must have contributed to what looks like a
model of the arrhytmic expansions scenario (Guilaine 2001; Biagi et al. 2005, 4548; Berger, Guilaine 2009,
4345). Taking radiometric data into consideration, the spread of early farming plausibly reached Mhtelek
from the upper Krs region alongside the Beretty and r river valleys within ca. 100 years which means a
mean speed of 1.5 km/year along the 150 km distance. Between Mhtelek and Ibrny the next 120 km was
covered in 50100 years, which means a result between 2.4 and 1.2 km/year along the line of the Tisza. On
the basis of the previously calculated chronological data concerning the Great Hungarian Plain and the western
part of Transylvania another conclusion is also apparent: the rates of the neolithic diffusion were different inside this relatively restricted territory in the western part of the Carpathian Basin (Bnffy 2009, 4548). These
6 These data were provided by Janusz K. Kozowski from the Pozna Radiocarbon Laboratory, where kind help by Tomasz Goslar
must be acknowledged.
7 Since the piece of pottery provided for the purpose of radiocarbon measurements is similar to the rest of the material, it is possible that measurement results were mixed. It is also possible that dates were mistaken for that of a bone sample or that the measurement
taken on the shard is unreliable. This latter possibility has already been raised at several sites.
215
very preliminary results support the concept that neolithization was a multi-functional process in each of its
manifested contexts across the Balkans. Consequently, its spatial and chronological variability must have been
considerable below a certain geographical resolution.
Krs Culture finds from Mhtelek may be largely dated to the same time that characterized settlement
Phase B at the site of Tiszaszls. Even older Krs Culture finds from Mhtelek may be dated to between
57705650 cal BC,8 while more recent finds show similarities with their counterparts from Ibrny and can be
dated to between 563055305470 cal BC. However, Krs Culture finds from Tiszaszls and Ibrny, differ
from each other. As has been outlined, ceramics from Tiszaszls are similar to those from Nagykr and other coeval sites in the environs of Szolnok.
On the basis of the new Szatmr II dates we know that the early ALPC should have developed between
56205470 cal BC. As the distribution areas of the southern, Alfld type of the Krs Culture and that of the
Szatmr stylistic group overlap in a substantial part of the Upper and Central Tisza Region, it is probable that
the Tisza valley amounted to a transitional area around 562055305470 cal BC, when the Krs Culture settlements and the first ALPC ceramic types co-existed (Domborczki 2005, 911; 2009, 8285, 114118, Fig.
6). Meanwhile the adaptive phase of the Krs Culture, leading to the Szatmr II stylistic group (that is the
emergence of the ALPC in the Middle and Upper Tisza Region) seems to fall between 5750 and 5600 cal BC.
This further narrows the 300400 years time gap, previously estimated on the basis of the 6000/5800 and 5600
cal BC dates outlined by the most recent analyses (Bocquet-Appel et al. 2009, 812813). In reality, an approximately 150 years long interval may be reckoned with. This could be indicative of rather rapid culture change
in a relatively restricted geographical area.
Revealing concomitant economic, social and congnitive relationships will require further, in-depth research. Reconstructing the process of neolithization in terms of viable models can only be based on those analyses. One of the main questions remains the nature of complex factors whose context defined the transition between the Krs Culture and the Szatmr group in the Upper Tisza Region.
references
Bcskay E., Simn K., 1987, Some remarks on chipped stone industries of the earliest Neolithic populations in present
Hungary [in:] J.K. Kozowski, S.K. Kozowski (ed.), Chipped stone industries of the early farming cultures in Europe, Archaeologia Interregionalis 240, WarszawaKrakw, 107130.
Bnffy E., 2009, Variations on Neolithic transition in Eastern and Western Hungary [in:] D. Gheorghiu (ed.), Late Foragers, Early Farmers, and Ceramic Traditions: On the Beginning of Pottery in the Near East and Europe, Newcastle
upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholar Publishing, 4262.
Banner J., 1932, A kopncsi s kotacparti neolithikus telepek s a tiszai kultra III. peridusa Die neolithische Ansiedlungen von Hdmezvsrhely-Kopncs und Kotacpart und die III. Periode der Theiss-Kultur, Dolgozatok
8, 148.
Berger J.-F., Guilaine J., 2009, The 8200 cal BP abrupt environmental change and the Neolithic transition: A Mediterranean perspective, Quaternary International 200, 3149.
Biagi P., Shennan St., Spataro M., 2005, Rapid rivers and slow seas? New data for the radiocarbon chronology of the
Balkan peninsula [in:] L. Nikolova, J. Fritz, J. Higgins (ed.), Prehistoric Archaeology & Anthropological Theory and
Education, Reports of Prehistoric Research Projects 67, Salt Lake CityKarlovo, 4150.
Bir K., 2007, Early Neolithic raw material economies in the Carpathian Basin [in:] J.K. Kozowski, M. Nowak (ed.),
Mesolithic/Neolithic Interactions in the Balkans and in the Middle Danube Basin, BAR International Series 1726,
Oxford: Archaeopress, 6375.
Bocquet-Appel J.-P., Naji St., Linden V.M., Kozowski J.K., 2009, Detection of diffusion and contact zones of early farming in Europe from the space-time distribution of 14C dates, Journal of Archaeological Science 36, 807820.
8 Kalicz, Makkay 1977b, 23. The older date of Mhtelek (Bln-1331: 683560) after its calibration with the OxCal 3.10 shows 5770
5650 BC within the 1 domain.
216
Davison K., Dolukhanov P.M., Sarson G.R., Shukurov A., 2006, The role of waterways in the spread of the Neolithic,
Journal of Archaeological Science 33, 641652.
Davison K., Dolukhanov P.M., Sarson G.R., Shukurov A., Zaitseva G.I., 2009, Multiple sources of the European Neolithic: Mathematical modelling constrained by radiocarbon dates, Quaternary International 203, 1018.
Domborczki L., 2005, A Krs-kultra szaki elterjedsi hatrnak problematikja a Tiszaszls-Domahza-pusztn
vgzett sats eredmnyeinek fnyben, Archeometriai Mhely 2005/2, 515, online: http://www.ace.hu/am.
2009, Settlement structures of the Alfld Linear Pottery Culture (ALPC) in Heves County (North-Eastern Hungary):
development models and historical reconstructions on micro, meso and macro levels [in:] J.K. Kozowski (ed.), Inter
actions between different models of neolithization north of the Central European agro-ecological barrier. Papers
presented on the symposium organized by the EU project FEPRE, Prace Komisji Prehistorii Karpat PAU 5, Krakw:
Polska Akademia Umiejtnoci, 75127.
in press, The problem of the Neolithization in North-Eastern Hungary. Older theories and new perspectives, RGZM
Tagungen, Mainz.
Domborczki L., Kaczanowska M., Kozowski J.K., 2010, The Neolithic settlement at Tiszaszls-Domahza-puszta
and the question of the northern spread of the Krs Culture, Atti della Societ per la Preistoria e Protostoria della
Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia 17, 101155.
Gheorghiu D., 2008, The Emergence of Pottery [in:] A. Jones (ed.), Prehistoric Europe. Theory and Practice, Oxford:
Wiley-Blackwell, 164192.
2009, Early Pottery: A Concise Overwiew [in:] D. Gheorghiu (ed.), Early Farmers, Late Foragers, and Ceramic Traditions: On the Beginning of Pottery in the Near East and Europe, Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scolars Publishing, 121.
Guilaine J., 2001, La diffusion de lagriculture en Europe: une hypothese arythmique, Zephyrus 5354 (20002001),
267272.
Hansen S., 2007, Bilder vom Menschen der Steinzeit. Untersuchungen zur antropomorphen Plastik der Jungsteinzeit
und Kupferzeit in Sdosteuropa, Archologie in Eurasien 20, Zabern, Mainz.
Hg A.N., 2008, Descoperiri aparinnd culturii Cri din zona Careiului (Early Neolithic Cri group finds from Carei area), Satu Mare 25/1, 534.
Jsa A., 1892, skori telep Rakamaz s Timr kzsgek kztt, Archaeologiai rtest, 205207.
Kaczanowska M., Kozowski J.K., 2008, The Krs and the Early Eastern Linear Culture in the Northern part of the
Carpathian Basin: a view from the perspective of lithic industries, Acta Terrae Septemcastrensis 7, 937.
Kalicz N., in press, Mhtelek: a Krs kultra helyi vltozata, a Mhtelek fcies lelhelye.
Kalicz N., Kos J., 2000, Telepls a legkorbbi jkkori srokkal szakkelet-Magyarorszgrl Eine Siedlung mit ltestneolithischen Grbern in Nordostungarn, Herman Ott Mzeum vknyve 39, 4576.
2002, Eine Siedlung mit ltestneolitischen Grbern in Nordostungarn, Preistoria Alpina 37 (2001), 4579.
Kalicz N., Makkay, J., 1972, Probleme des frhen Neolithikums der nrdlichen Tiefebene, Alba Regia 12, 7792.
1977a, Frhneolithische Siedlung in Mhtelek-Ndas (Vorbericht), Mitteilungen des Archologisches Institut des
UAW 6, 1324.
1977b, Die Linienbandkeramik in der Grossen Ungarischen Tiefebene, Studia Archaeologica 7, Budapest: Akadmiai
Kiad.
Kertsz R., 2002, Mesolithic hunter-gatherers in the northwestern part of the Great Hungarian Plain, Praehistoria
3, 281304.
Kertsz R., Smegi P., 1999, Terik, kritika s egy modell: Mirt llt meg a Krs-Starevo-kultra terjedse a Krpt-medence centrumban?, Tisicum 11, 923.
2001, Theories, critiques and a model: Why did the expansion of the Krs-Starevo Culture stop in the centre of the
Carpathian Basin? [in:] R. Kertsz, J. Makkay (ed.), From the Mesolithic to the Neolithic. Proceedings of the International Archaeological Conference held in the Damjanich Museum of Szolnok, September 2227, 1996, Archaeolingua 11, Budapest, 193214.
Kertsz R., Smegi P., Kozk M., Braun M., Flegyhzi E., Hertelendi E., 1994, Mesolithikum im nrdlichen Teil der
Groen Ungarischen Tiefebene, Jsa Adrs Mzeum vknyve 36, 1561.
Kovcs K., 2007a, Neolitikus teleplsnyomok a Tisza Szolnok s Szrpuszta kztti magaspartjn A Neolithic settlement on the Tisza bank between Szolnok and Szrpuszta, srgszeti Levelek 89, 3950.
217
2007b, A tiszaszls-aszparti kzps neolitikus telepls legkorbbi idszaknak vizsglata a kronolgiai s a

kulturlis kapcsolatok tkrben The earliest occupation period of the Middle Neolithic settlement at TiszaszlsAszpart in the light of its chronological and cultural connections, srgszeti Levelek 89, 1938.
Kozowski J.K., 2005, Remarks on the Mesolithic in the northern part of the Carpathian Basin [in:] E. Gl, I. Juhsz,
P. Smegi (ed.), Environmental Archaeology in North-Eastern Hungary, Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 19, Budapest, 175186.
Kozowski J.K., Nowak M., 2007, Neolithization of the Upper Tisza Basin [in:] J.K. Kozowski, M. Nowak (ed.), Mesolithic/Neolithic Interactions in the Balkans and in the Middle Danube Basin, BAR International Series 1726, Oxford: Archaeopress, 77102.
Lazarovici Gh., 1984, Neoliticul timpuriu n Romnia Das Frhneolithikum in Rumnien, Acta Musei Porolissensis
8, 49104.
Liviu M., Szcs P.L., 2007, Neoliticul i eneoliticul A neolitikum s a rzkor The Neolithic and the Copper Age [in:]
M. Liviu, P.L. Szcs (ed.), Catalogul coleciei de arheologie A rgszeti gyjtemny katalgusa Catalogue of the
Archaeological Collection, Satu Mare: Muzeul Judeean Satu Mare, 3041.
Makkay J., 1982, A magyarorszgi neolitikum kutatsnak j eredmnyei, Budapest: Akadmiai Kiad.
1996, Theories about the Origin, the Distribution and the End of the Krs Culture [in:] L. Tlas (ed.), At the Fringes
of Three Worlds. Hunter-Gatherers and Farmers in the Middle Tisza Valley, Szolnok: Damjanich Museum, 3549.
2001a, A Jszsg-hatr s az indoeurpai strtnet: rgszeti tnyek s nyelvtrtneti vonatkozsaik The Jszsg
border and the Indoeuropean prehistory. Archaeological realities and their linguistic interpretations, Tisicum 12,
5778.
2001b, Neolithic Prelude to the Indo-Europeanization of Italy. An Old Theory in a New Perspective, Budapest.
2003, srgszeti kutatsok Magyarorszgon az utbbi vekben. Az jkkor s a rzkor, Jsa Andrs Mzeum
vknyve 65, 2763.
2007, The excavations of the Early Neolithic sites of the Krs Culture in the Krs valley, Hungary: The final report. Vol. I: The excavations: stratigraphy, structures and graves, E. Starnini, P. Biagi (ed.), Societ per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia Quaderno 11, Trieste.
Makkay J., Starnini E., 2008, The excavations of the Early Neolithic sites of the Krs Culture in the Krs valley, Hungary: The final report. Vol. II: The pottery assemblages, and Vol. III: the small finds, Budapest.
Mateiciucov I., 2004, Mesolithic traditions and the origin of the Linear Pottery Culture (LBK) [in:] A. Lukes, M. Zvelebil (ed.), LBK dialogues. Studies in the formation of the Linear Pottery Culture, BAR International Series 1304,
Oxford: Archaeopress, 91107.
2007, Worked stone: obsidian and flint [in:] A. Whittle (ed.), The Early Neolithic on the Great Hungarian Plain. Investigations of the Krs Culture site of Ecsegfalva 23, County Bks. Vol. II, Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 21,
Budapest, 677726.
Maxim Z., 1999, Neo-eneoliticul din Transilvania. Date arheologice i matematico-statistice, Bibliotheca Musei Napocensis 19, Cluj-Napoca.
Nagy E.Gy., 1998, Az alfldi vonaldszes kermia kultrjnak kialakulsa Die Hearusbildung der Alflder Linearbandkeramik, Dri Mzeum vknyve 19951996, 53150.
Nikolova L., 2007, Toward an evolutionary model of gradual development of social complexity among the Neolithic pottery communities in the Balkans (cultural-chronological and cultural-anthropological problems) [in:] M. Spataro,
P. Biagi (ed.), A Short Walk through the Balkans: the First Farmers of the Carpathian Basin and Adjacent Regions,
Societ per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia Quaderno 12, Trieste, 161169.
Oross K., 2007, The pottery from Ecsegfalva 23 [in:] A. Whittle (ed.), The Early Neolithic on the Great Hungarian Plain. Investigations of the Krs Culture site of Ecsegfalva 23, County Bks. Vol. II, Varia Archaeologica Hungarica
21, Budapest, 491620.
Parker B.J., 2006, Toward an understanding of borderland processes, American Antiquity 71, 77100.
Potushniak M., 2004, Data to the question of the Starevo/Krs Culture dwellings in the Upper Tisza Region, Jsa
Andrs Mzeum vknyve 66, 5369.
Rcz B., 2008, Pattintott keszkz-nyersanyagok felhasznlsnak elzetes eredmnyei a paleolitikumban a mai Krptalja terletn, Archeometriai Mhely 2008/2, 4754, online: http://www.ace.hu/am.
Raczky P., 1983, A kora neolitikumbl a kzps neolitikumba val tmenet krdsei a Kzp- s Fels-Tiszavidken
Questions of transition between the Early end Middle Neolithic in the Middle and Upper Tisza Region, Archaeologiai rtest 110, 161194.
218
Zsfia Eszter Kovcs, Erika Gl, Lszl Bartosiewicz
Raczky P., Anders A., 2003, The internal relations of the Alfld Linear Pottery Culture in Hungary and the characteristics of human representation [in:] E. Jerem, P. Raczky (ed.), Morgenrot der Kulturen. Frhe Etappen der Mensch
heitsgeschichte in Mittel- und Sdosteuropa. Festschrift fr Nndor Kalicz zum 75. Geburtstag, Archaeolingua: Budapest, 155182.
Raczky P., Smegi P., Bartosiewicz L., Gl E., Kaczanowska M., Kozowski J.K., Anders A., in press, Ecological Barrier versus Mental Marginal Zone? Problems of the Northernmost Krs Culture Settlements in the Great Hungarian Plain, RGZM Tagungen, Mainz.
Rosania C.N., Boulanger M.T., Bir K., Ryzhov S., Trnka G., Glascock M.D., 2008, Revisiting Carpathian obsidian,
Antiquity 82, online: http://www.antiquity.ac.uk/ProjGall/rosania/index.html.
Schier W., 1997, Proto-Vina: Zum bergang von der Starevo- zur Vina-Kultur im Sdosten des Karpatenbeckens
[in:] M. Lazi (ed.), Dragoslavo Srejovi completis LXV annsi ab amicis collegis discipulis oblatum.
600, Belgrade, 155166.
Sherratt A.G., 1982, The Development of Neolithic and Copper Age Settlement in the Great Hungarian Plain. Part I: The
Regional Setting, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 1, 287316.
2005, Fractal Farmers: Patterns of Neolithic Origin and Dispersal [in:] J. Cherry, Ch. Scarre, St. Shennan (ed.),
Explaining social change: studies in honour of Colin Renfrew, McDonald Institute Monographs, Cambridge,
5363.
Spataro M., 2003, Scientific study of ancient ceramic production and a case-study: the site of Foeni-Gaz (Timi County, Romania), Patrimonium Banaticum 2, 726.
2008, Early Neolithic pottery production in Romania: Gura Baciului and eua La-Crarea Morii (Transylvania)
[in:] D.W. Bailey, A. Whittle, D. Hofmann (ed.), Living Well Together? Settlement and materiality in the Neolithic of
south-east and central Europe, Oxford: Oxbow Books, 91100.
2009, Cultural Diversities: The Early Neolithic in the Adriatic region and Central Balkans. A Pottery Perspective
[in:] D. Gheorghiu (ed.), Early Farmers, Late Foragers, and Ceramic Traditions: On the Beginning of Pottery in the
Near East and Europe, Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scolars Publishing, 6386.
Starnini E., 2008, Material culture tradition and identity [in:] D.W. Bailey, A. Whittle, D. Hofmann (ed.), Living Well
Together? Settlement and materiality in the Neolithic of south-east and central Europe, Oxford: Oxbow Books,
101107.
Starnini E., Szakmny Gy., 1998, The lithic industry of the Neolithic site of Szarvas and Endrd, Acta Archaeologica
Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 50, 279342.
Smegi P., 2007, Palaeographical background of the Mesolithic and Early Neolithic settlement in the Carpathian Basin [in:] J.K. Kozowski, M. Nowak (ed.), Mesolithic/Neolithic Interactions in the Balkans and in the Middle Danube
Basin, BAR International Series 1726, Oxford: Archaeopress, 4751.
Smegi P., Kertsz R., 1998, A Krpt-medence skrnyezeti sajtossgai egy kolgiai csapda az jkkorban?,
Jszkunsg 44/34, 144157.
Szakmny Gy., Starnini E., 2007, Archaeometric research on the first pottery production in the Carpathian Basin: manufacturing traditions of the Early Neolithic, Krs Culture ceramics, Archaeometriai Mhely 2007/2, 518.
Van Andel T.H., Runnels C.N., 1995, The earliest farmers in Europe, Antiquity 69, 481500.
Whittle A., 1996, Europe in the Neolithic. The creation of new worlds, Cambridge.
Whittle A., Bartosiewicz L., Bori D., Pettitt P., Richards M., 2002, In the beginning: new radiocarbon dates for the Early Neolithic in northern Serbia and south-east Hungary, Antaeus 25, 63117.

2010 Domboroczki L. - Raczky P. Excavati PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2010 Domboroczki L. - Raczky P. Excavati PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NEOLITHIZATION OF THE CARPATHIAN BASIN: NORTHERNMOST DISTRIBUTION OF THE STAREVO/KRS CULTURE

EXCAVATIONS AT IBRNY AND THE NORTHERNMOST

EXCAVATIONS AT IBRNYNAGYERD AND THE NORTHERNMOST

Lszl Domborczki, Pl R aczky

Lszl Domborczki, Pl R aczky

Lszl Domborczki, Pl R aczky

Fig. 7. IbrnyNagyerd. Selected vessel fragments from the Krs pit

Lszl Domborczki, Pl R aczky

Fig. 8. IbrnyNagyerd. Selected vessel fragments from the Krs pit

Fig. 9. IbrnyNagyerd. Selected vessel fragments from the Krs pit

Lszl Domborczki, Pl R aczky

Lszl Domborczki, Pl R aczky

Lszl Domborczki, Pl R aczky

Surface survey for assessing features at the site of IbrnyNagyerd in 2008

Lszl Domborczki, Pl R aczky

Lszl Domborczki, Pl R aczky

Lszl Domborczki, Pl R aczky

Lszl Domborczki, Pl R aczky

Lszl Domborczki, Pl R aczky

2007b, A tiszaszls-aszparti kzps neolitikus telepls legkorbbi idszaknak vizsglata a kronolgiai s a

Zsfia Eszter Kovcs, Erika Gl, Lszl Bartosiewicz

You might also like