StadlerP_2013a

Ősrégészeti Tanulmányok / Prehistoric Studies

I

MoMents in tiMe

Ősrégészeti Tanulmányok / Prehistoric Studies

Series Editors

Alexandra Anders, Gábor Kalla, Viktória Kiss,Gabriella Kulcsár and Gábor V. Szabó

MoMents in tiMePapers Presented to Pál Raczky

on His 60th Birthday

Edited by

Alexandra Anders and Gabriella Kulcsár

with

Gábor Kalla, Viktória Kiss and Gábor V. Szabó

Ősrégészeti Társaság / Prehistoric SocietyEötvös Loránd University

L’Harmattan

Budapest 2013

English and German text revised byLászló Bartosiewicz, Alice M. Choyke, Judith A. Rasson and Magdaléna Seleanu (English)

Ulf Morche and Éva Pávai (German)

The publication of this volume was generously supported byEötvös Loránd University, Faculty of Humanities

Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Eurasien-AbteilungŐsrégészeti Társaság / Prehistoric Society

Nóra ’97 Kft.Archeodata 1998 Bt.

Ásatárs Kft.

© The Authors, 2013© L’Harmattan Kiadó, 2013

ISBN 978-963-236-346-2ISSN 2063-8930

Typography byZsolt Gembela

Cover designGábor Váczi and Zsolt Gembela

Printed in Hungary by Robinco Kft.Director: Péter Kecskeméthy

Contents

Editorial / A szerkesztők előszava ..................................................................................................................14

Publications of Pál Raczky .............................................................................................................................16

Walter Meier-ArendtPál Raczky zum 60. Geburtstag. Ein Vor- und Grußwort ........................................................................ 27

The Early Neolithic — The First Moments

Krum BacvarovMalak Preslavets Revisited: The Early Neolithic Burials ..................................................................... 29

Eszter BánffyOn Neolithic Frontiers in the Carpathian Basin .................................................................................. 35

Paolo Biagi – Elisabetta StarniniPre-Balkan Platform Flint in the Early Neolithic Sites of the Carpathian Basin: Its Occurrence and Significance ................................................................. 47

Mihael BudjaPotters and Pots in the Mesolithic–Neolithic Transformation in Southeastern Europe .............................................................................................................................61

Ivan GatsovLithic Assemblages from the Area of the North-Western Pontic from the 9th–7th Millennia ........................................................................................................................ 85

The Middle Neolithic — The Time of the LBK

Piroska CsengeriFigural Representations from the Initial Phase of the Alföld Linear Pottery Culture from Novajidrány (Hernád Valley, Northeast Hungary) ........................................91

Ferenc Horváth – Florin DraşoveanRemarks on the Connections between the Banat and the Great Hungarian Plain at the Beginning of the Middle Neolithic (Satchinez–Alföld Linear Pottery–Esztár–Vinča) ................................................................................113

Gábor IlonThe Transdanubian Linear Pottery Culture in County Vas: Recent Finds and Findings ......................................................................................................................133

Eva LenneisBeobachtungen zu frühneolithischen Schlitzgruben ..........................................................................147

Tibor MartonLBK Households in Transdanubia: A Case Study .............................................................................. 159

Zsolt Mester – Jacques TixierPot à lames: The Neolithic Blade Depot from Boldogkőváralja (Northeast Hungary) ...............................................................................................................................173

Krisztián OrossRegional Traits in the LBK Architecture of Transdanubia ................................................................187

Tibor PaluchMaroslele-Panahát, Legelő: Data to the Middle Neolithic Anthropomorphic Vessel ....................................................................................................................... 203

Juraj Pavúk – Zdeněk FarkašBeitrag zur Gliederung der älteren Linearkeramik ............................................................................213

Jörg PetraschStandardisierung versus Individualität? Das Wesen der jungsteinzeitlichen Bestattungssitten ........................................................................ 237

Katalin SebőkTwo Ceramic-Covered Burials from the Middle Neolithic of the Carpathian Basin .......................................................................................................................... 249

Peter Stadler – Nadezdha KotovaThe Early LBK Site at Brunn am Gebirge, Wolfholz (5670–5100 BC): Locally Established or Founded by Immigrants from the Starčevo Territory? .............................. 259

Gerhard TrnkaEin bemerkenswerter Klingenkern aus Szentgál-Radiolarit von Groß-Schollach im westlichen Niederösterreich ........................................................................ 277

Zsuzsanna M. VirágOn the Anthropomorphic Representations of TLPC in Connection with Some Recent Finds from Budapest (Figurines and Vessels with Facial Representations) ...................................................................................................................................... 289

The Late Neolithic — Polgár-Csőszhalom and Its World

Judit P. BarnaA Miniature Anthropomorphic Vessel from the Early Lengyel Culture Site at Sormás-Török-földek in Southwestern Hungary......................................................................311

John ChapmanFrom Varna to Brittany via Csőszhalom — Was There a “Varna Effect”? ..................................... 323

Alice M. Choyke – Zsuzsanna Tóth Practice Makes Perfect: Quartered Metapodial Awls in the Late Neolithic of Hungary .......................................................................................................... 337

Contents

6

Małgorzata Kaczanowska – Janusz K. KozłowskiThe Transition from the Neolithic to the Copper Age Lithic Industries in the Northern Carpathian Basin ........................................................................................................ 353

Nándor KaliczSiedlungsstruktur und Bestattungen mit Prestigeobjekten des Fundplatzes Tápé-Lebő (südliches Theißgebiet, Ungarn) ........................................................... 365

Katalin KovácsLate Neolithic Exchange Networks in the Carpathian Basin ........................................................... 385

Kitti KöhlerErgebnisse der anthropologischen Untersuchungen zweier spätneolithischer Bestattungen in Alsónyék ....................................................................................... 401

Johannes Müller – Robert Hofmann – Nils Müller-Scheeßel – Knut RassmannNeolithische Arbeitsteilung: Spezialisierung in einem Tell um 4900 v. Chr. ................................. 407

Zsuzsanna SiklósiTraces of Social Inequality and Ritual in the Late Neolithic of the Great Hungarian Plain ................................................................................................................ 421

Krisztina Somogyi – Zsolt GallinaBesonderes anthropomorphes Gefäß der Lengyel-Kultur mit doppelter Gesichts- und Menschendarstellung in Alsónyék (SW-Ungarn) ..................................................... 437

Alasdair WhittleEnclosures in the Making: Knowledge, Creativity and Temporality ............................................... 457

István Zalai-GaálTotenhaltung als Indikator relativer Chronologie im transdanubischen Spätneolithikum? .............................................................................................. 467

Neolithic Spiritual Life

László DomboróczkiNeolithic Cult Objects and Their Symbolism ..................................................................................... 487

Gheorghe Lazarovici – Cornelia-Magda Lazarovici“Sacred house” and Their Importance for the Reconstruction of Architecture, Inner Furnishings and Spiritual Life ....................................................................... 503

The Early Copper Age — Between Change and Tradition

Attila Gyucha – William A. ParkinsonArchaeological “Cultures” and the Study of Social Interaction: The Emergence of the Early Copper Age Tiszapolgár Culture ..........................................................521

Contents

7

Svend HansenFigurinen aus Stein und Bein in der südosteuropäischen Kupferzeit ............................................. 539

Judit RegenyeSurviving Neolithic — The Early Copper Age in Transdanubia, North of Lake Balaton ............................................................................................................................ 557

Wolfram SchierAn Antiquarian’s Grave? Early Tiszapolgár Burials in the Late Vinča Tell Site of Uivar (Romania) .................................................................................. 569

The Middle Copper Age — Time of Axes

Attila László – Sándor József SztáncsujVessels with Handles with Discoid Attachments Discovered in the Ariuşd–Cucuteni Area and Some Problems in the Development and Chronology of the Ariuşd (Erősd) Culture in Southeastern Transylvania ..................................... 579

Ildikó SzathmáriKupferhammeraxt mit Spuren eines Holzschaftrestes vom Donauufer bei Szentendre ............................................................................................................ 595

From the Late Copper Age to the Beginning of the Bronze Age — Transitions

Mária BondárUtilitarian, Artistic, Ritual or Prestige Articles? The Possible Function of an Enigmatic Artefact ....................................................................................................................... 605

Szilvia FábiánA Preliminary Analysis of Intrasite Patterns at Balatonkeresztúr-Réti-dűlő, a Late Copper Age Site on the Southern Shore of Lake Balaton in Hungary ..................................613

László GyörgyLate Copper Age Animal Burials in the Carpathian Basin .............................................................. 627

Gabriella KulcsárGlimpses of the Third Millenium BC in the Carpathian Basin ....................................................... 643

Vajk SzeverényiThe Earliest Copper Shaft-Hole Axes in the Carpathian Basin: Interaction, Chronology and Transformations of Meaning ............................................................ 661

The Early Bronze Age — The Rise of a New Age

János Dani – Viktória KisjuhászBestattungen der Makó-Kultur in Berettyóújfalu, Nagy Bócs-dűlő ................................................ 671

Contents

8

Anna EndrődiRecent Data on the Settlement History and Contact System of the Bell Beaker–Csepel group .............................................................................................................................. 693

The Middle Bronze Age — Tells and Metals

Marietta Csányi – Judit TárnokiA Dinner Set from a Bronze Age House in Level 2 of the Túrkeve-Terehalom Settlement ................................................................................ 707

Klára P. Fischl – László ReményiInterpretation Possibilites of the Bronze Age Tell Sites in the Carpathian Basin ......................................................................................................................... 725

Szilvia Honti – Viktória KissThe Bronze Hoard from Zalaszabar. New Data on the Study of the Tolnanémedi Horizon – Part 2 ................................................................................................... 739

Magdolna ViczeMiddle Bronze Age Households at Százhalombatta-Földvár ............................................................ 757

The Late Bronze Age — Rituals of Power

Judit KoósSpätbronzezeitliche Grube mit besonderer Bestimmung aus Oszlár-Nyárfaszög (Nordostungarn) ............................................................................................. 771

Gábor V. SzabóLate Bronze Age Stolen. New Data on the Illegal Acquisition and Trade of Bronze Age Artefacts in the Carpathian Basin ........................................................... 793

Gábor VácziBurial of the Late Tumulus–Early Urnfield Period from the Vicinity of Nadap, Hungary ...................................................................................................817

The Iron Age — End of the (Pre)history

István FodorA Scythian Mirror from Hajdúnánás, Hungary ..................................................................................831

Miklós SzabóLièvre celte de la puszta hongroise ........................................................................................................ 839

Contents

9

Interdisciplinary Archaeology

László Bartosiewicz – Erika Gál – Zsófia Eszter Kovács Domesticating Mathematics: Taxonomic Diversity in Archaeozoological Assemblages ....................................................................................................... 853

Katalin T. Biró More on “How Much?” ........................................................................................................................... 863 Zoltán Czajlik – András Bödőcs The Effectiveness of Aerial Archaeological Research — An Approach from the GIS Perspective ............................................................................................... 873

Ferenc Gyulai Archaeobotanical Research of the Neolithic Sites in the Polgár Area ............................................. 885

Pál Sümegi – Sándor Gulyás – Gergő Persaits The Geoarchaeological Evolution of the Loess-Covered Alluvial Island of Polgár and Its Role in Shaping Human Settlement Strategies ...................................................... 901

Zsuzsanna K. Zoffmann Significant Biostatistical Connections between Late Neolithic Ethnic Groups from the Carpathian Basin and Bronze Age Populations from Territories beyond the Carpathians .............................................................................................913

Contents

10

The Early LBK Site at Brunn am Gebirge, Wolfholz (5670–5100 BC):

Locally Established or Founded by Immigrants from the Starcevo Territory?

Naturhistorisches Museum WienA-1010 Wien, Burgring [email protected]

Peter Stadler

MoMents in tiMe – Budapest 2013

Ukrainian Academy of SciencesInstitute of ArchaeologyUA-04210 Kiev, prospect Geroev Stalingrada [email protected]

Nadezhda Kotova

Sections of an extensive Early Neolithic settlement were surveyed and excavated between 1989 and 2005 at Brunn am Gebirge in Lower Austria, near the southern boundary of Vienna. The remains of longhouses were uncovered in locations labelled Sites 1–7, which could be associated with different groups. The remains of 73 longhouses were identified, most of which were excavated, although some were only indicated by their debris and the longpits flanking them, and some were located through magnetic prospection. The excavated area is about 90,000 m2 large .

The settlement was occupied between 5670 and 5100 cal BC. The earliest part of the settlement is repre-sented by Site 2a, followed by Sites 2b, 3, 5, 4, 1 and 6.

A changing pattern of lithics usage and animal exploitation could be noted during the settlement’s oc-cupation. Likewise, changes could be noted in house construction techniques too, although these were not as substantial. The standard length of 20 m and breadth of 7 to 8 m could be documented from the earliest occupation at Site 2a. Three longitudinal rows of posts supported the roof. The more regular, straighter sec-tion on the inner part of the longpits flanking the houses probably served as the bedding trench for the timber posts of the walls. The houses are usually oriented south to north, with deviations to the west or to the east on some sites. It would appear that this shift in orientation has a chronological dimension. Different construc-tions could be distinguished, mainly among the better-preserved houseplans of Site 3.

Egy jelentős kora neolitikus település részleteit figyeltük meg és tártuk föl 1989 és 2005 között az alsó-auszt-riai Brunn am Gebirge lelőhelyen, Bécs déli határában. A hosszúházak maradványai különböző területeken kerültek elő, melyeket 1–7. lelőhelyként jelöltünk. Összesen 73 hosszúházat ismerhettünk meg, legnagyobb részüket az ásatás során, néhány házalapot a mellettük húzódó hosszanti gödrök alapján, míg egy részüket a mágneses felmérés során azonosítottuk. A feltárt terület nagysága közel 90 000 m2.

Az egész település életét 5670–5100 cal BC közé keltezhetjük. A település legkorábbi részét a 2a lelőhely képviseli, ezt követi időben a 2b., 3., 5., 4., 1. és a 6. településrész.

Az időbeli változások a kőeszköz- és a kerámia-anyagban, illetve az állattartásban egyaránt nyomon követhetőek. Hasonló változás a házépítésben is megfigyelhető, bár nem akkora mértékben. A legkorábbi 2a lelőhelyen a házakat már a standard méretnek megfelelően építették, az épületek mintegy 20 m hosszúak és 7–8 m szélesek. A tetőszerkezetet három hosszanti cölöpsor tartotta. A házak mellett húzódó hosszanti gödrök belső oldalán megfigyelt szabályosabb részbe ágyazták a falszerkezetet tartó cölöpöket. A házakat általában dél–észak irányba tájolták, olykor kisebb eltéréssel nyugat, illetve néhány lelőhelyen kelet felé is. Úgy tűnik, hogy a tájolás változásának időrendi jelentősége is lehet. A 3. lelőhely jobb állapotban megmaradt épületei között más típusú szerkezeteket is megfigyeltünk.

259

Peter Stadler – Nadezhda Kotova

260

The excavaTion

The largest settlement of the Early LBK (Line-ar Pottery culture) was excavated over an area of about 90,000 m2 between 1989 and 2005 at Brunn am Gebirge lying near Wolfholz, a few meters beyond the southern boundary of Vi-enna. Altogether 73 longhouses with a standard length of 7 m or 20 m respectively were wholly or partially uncovered. The land is flat, although rising slightly toward the north-east. The houses are distributed over seven locations which can

be ordered into a chronological sequence. Site 2a, representing the earliest settlement, was es-tablished around 5700–5600 BC and was oc-cupied for some 220 years. Occupation shifted from this location to Sites 2b, 3, 5, 4, 1 and 6, in this chronological sequence. The settlement’s occupation shifted from south-west to north-east over time, extending also across a small hill. Only Site 6 diverges from this pattern of settle-ment development because it is located in the south and it is the latest. The overall length of the settlement is ca. 1000 m with a maximum breadth of ca. 500 m.

A satellite image from Google Earth from 2008 offers a good overview of the settlement’s broader area (Fig. 1). We have marked the location of the eight sites, although the exact position of Site 7

still needs to be confirmed.1 Figure 2 presents the triangulation map of the sites (excluding Site 7). All excavated houses are visible, together with the buildings identified through magnetic prospec-tion. The humus had to be removed mechanically with machines and the surface had to be cleaned by our workers over an area of 15,000 m2.

A handful of preliminary reports and internet publications are already available (Stadler 1997). A book with 225 illustrations on the ceramic finds from Brunn Wolfholz, Site 2 is currently in prepa-ration (Stadler–Kotova in press).

The houses are usually oriented south to north, occasionally with smaller deviations to the west or to the east. The northern part of the oldest houses from Site 2 deviates more to the west, while the northern part of the houses from Sites 3, 4 and 1 deviates more to the east.

Most houses measure 20 m by 7–8 m. The fin-er details of some houses are shown in Figure 3. The most striking feature of the houses from Sites 2, 3, 4 and 1 are the longpits flanking the house, whose irregular outer part was used for extracting the clay needed for the construction of the house walls, while their inner, more regularly shaped part served as the bedding trench for the house

1 Pottery sherds and daub fragments came to light at Site 7 du-ring construction work; the site has not been excavated yet.

Fig. 1. Satellite view of the sites at Brunn am Gebirge Wolfholz in Google Earth, together with the location of Sites 1–7, excavated be-tween 1989 and 2005

Fig. 2. Brunn am Gebirge — triangulation map, showing the roughly 90,000 m2 large area in-vestigated between 1989 and 2005

The Early LBK Site at Brunn am Gebirge, Wolfholz (5670–5100 BC)

261

walls. Different constructions could be distin-guished, mainly in the better preserved section of Site 3. The question of whether these differences are functional or chronological is currently being analysed. The best-preserved remains of the tim-ber structure, six rows of post-holes made up of three post-holes each, lay inside the houses. The bedding trench of the houses’ long walls contained many post-holes, some of which were sometime visible in the longpits.

A semi-circular ditch system enclosing at least three houses was found at Site 2a. The clay ex-tracted from these ditches was perhaps also used later, long after the construction of the houses, for renewing the house walls. The long occupation of Site 2 certainly supports this hypothesis. One of the houses from Site 3 (cp. Fig. 3) contained dou-ble post-holes, suggesting that there was an addi-tional raised floor. The western longpit of another houseplan from Site 3, the remains of a house of which only the western half could be excavated, had a depth of about 2.5 m. This depth is excep-tional because the longpits of most other houses were no more than 1 m deep or even less. It is pos-sible that this house too had an additional, raised floor (or one or more storeys).

One of the houses at Site 6, representing the lat-est occupation, lacks longpits, featuring only post-holes. While one row running across the house had

eleven post-holes, the other rows were made up of fewer post-holes. Fewer post-holes were preserved in the house’s southern part, perhaps because they were dug to a shallower depth. It is also possible that the principles of house construction changed radi-cally during the period that elapsed between the oc-cupation of Sites 1 and 6. The builders had perhaps devised a method for transporting the clay needed for the walls over longer distances without too big an effort. This phenomenon has been observed not only at Brunn, but also in the case of most other houses built during the Noten kopf period.

The most thorough study on the houses from the earliest LBK period, containing also a discus-sion of their construction techniques was written by Harald Stäuble (Stäuble 2005).

In the following, we shall discuss the different categories of finds recovered from the site. Regard-ing the stone arterfacts, there is a clear develop-ment from the earliest occupation at Site 2 to the latest one at Site 6. One remarkable phenomenon is that we found an enormous amount of lithics, over 10,000 pieces, whose majority came to light at Site 2. Some of the trapezes found at Site 2 are shown in Figure 4. The high number of lithic finds contrasts sharply with other Austrian sites from the same period.

During the earliest occupation, raw material for the stone implements was procured from Bakony-

Fig. 3. Brunn am Gebirge — aerial photo of the 1999 season, showing the foundations of several longhouses


262

Szentgál near Lake Balaton in Hungary. Local “Horn stein” of the Mauer–Antonshöhe type, pro-bably from a nearby deposit at Giess hübl, was seldom used. These percentages changed conti-nuously from the early to the late occupation,

with a low proportion of local lithic raw material at the end of the occupation at Sites 1 and 6. The lithic material from Brunn has been analysed in three preliminary publications (Gro -nen born 1997; Matei ciu cová 2002; 2008). Figure 5 shows the distribution of the Ba kony-Szentgál raw material in the Carpathian Basin after Inna Ma tei ciu cová (Mateiciucová 2008). The distance between the raw material source in Hungary and the Brunn sites is a little over 150 km.

The most important catego-ry of finds is the ceramic assem-blage, which, as will be shown

below, reveals much about the community set-tling at Brunn. Pottery with linear ornamentation is mostly missing from the oldest sections of the settlement; the coarse pottery was fired at lower temperatures and is undecorated or has applied

Fig. 4. Brunn am Gebirge — stone implements (trapezes) from Site 2

Fig. 5. Distribution of Szentgál radiolarite (after Mateiciucová 2008)


263

decoration at the most. A biconical bowl from Site 2b is presented in Figure 6 together with other ves-sels from Site 2, alongside pottery from Site 1 (on the right). At first glance, there appears to be lit-tle difference between the coarse wares from Site 1 and the much earlier Site 2. However, there are major differences in terms of fine wares, which were recovered from Site 1, but were entirely lack-ing at Site 2. Pottery sherds with an decorated over their entire surface are shown in Figure 7. This pottery resembles the ceramics from excava-tions in southern Hungary, culturally assigned to the early Starčevo culture (Linear B phase), such as the finds from Lánycsók (Kalicz 1990, Taf. 16. 9). So-called barbotine decorated pottery is rare at Brunn 2. Figure 8 shows pottery decorated with this technique, used principally for adorning cooking (or cooling?) pots because the surface en-

largement provided by this decorative technique provided a better heat exchange. This type of bar-botine is usually regarded as a typical ornamenta-tion of the earliest LBK and late Starčevo pottery (Pavúk 2004, 75). However, pottery decorated us-ing the same barbotine technique is known from the earlier Lánycsók settlement, too (Kalicz 1990, Taf. 18. 1, 3, Taf. 19. 2).

Starting with Site 3, the proportion of linear decorated pottery increases in the settlement sec-tions occupied later, alongside the increasing use of fine wares in addition to the coarse one, as al-ready mentioned above. In contrast, the use of fig-urines gradually declined.

Shown in Figure 9 is the currently known sin-gle human figurine from Brunn Wolfholz, Site 2a. It was found together with a figurine foot in a pit. It is the earliest figurine with a face found in an

Fig. 6. Brunn am Gebirge — vessels decorated with finger impressions and/or knobs from Sites 2 (left) and Site 1 (right)

Fig. 7. Brunn am Gebirge — knob decorated pottery from Site 2


264

LBK context (a later figurine with a face portrayal was found at Bicske: Makkay 1978, Fig. 6). The face of the figurine resembles the ones on the piec-es from Lánycsók (Kalicz 1993, Fig. 3. 1).

The pottery from the different Brunn sites were analysed petrographically and chemically by Ro-man Sauer (Sauer in press), who found conclusive evidence that the ceramics analysed by him were produced from locally available clay.

The animal bone sample from Site 2 was not particularly large. The low number of animal bones cannot be explained by the poor preserva-tion of the bones because human skeletons were found in four graves at Site 2 (Gerold–Tesch-ler-Nicola in press). Even so, a changing pat-tern of animal exploitation could be noted dur-ing the settlement’s occupation. The sample from Site 3 was dominated by capra-ovis bones, while bovids were the main species at Site 1, repre-senting the latest occupation. The animal bones were analysed by Erich Pucher (Pucher 1998 in press).

analyTical procedures and meThods

The next section is devoted to the analytical pro-cedures and methods used in the evaluation, cur-rently still in progress. First discussed will be the radiocarbon dates. Most samples submitted to dating were taken from charcoal because no ani-mal bones were preserved at the earliest settlement sections investigated at Sites 2a and 2b.

All measurements were performed either at the AMS laboratory of the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule (ETH) in Zürich or at the Vienna

AMS laboratory (VERA).2 The evaluations were performed with the OxCal 3.10 programme, de-veloped by Christopher Bronk Ramsey in Oxford (Bronk Ramsey 1995). We used the latest cali-bration curve by Paula Reimer and her colleagues 2004 (Reimer et al. 2004) with the atmospheric record. The methods used have been discussed in detail by Peter Stadler (Stadler 2005; Stadler et al. 2006).

The simple group calibrations indicated that entire occupation of the settlement could be dated between 5540 and 5060 BC at the 1σ level (based on 60 AMS radiocarbon dates from the ETH lab-oratory in Zürich and the VERA laboratory in Vienna; Fig. 10). The earliest section of the settle-ment is Site 2a, followed by Sites 2b, 3, 4, 1 and 5. We are aware that this time range (especially re-garding the earlier site) may be too early because most of our samples were taken from charred oak, thus the “old wood effect” may have influenced the dates. Radiocarbon dates become more meaning-ful if they are combined with the available archae-ological information, in this case the occupation sequence of the sites. We therefore also tested the results using Bayesian statistics. The method of se-quencing is based on Bayesian statistics, and their primary purpose is to translate a relative chronol-ogy into an absolute one.

Using the sequencing method of Bayesian sta-tistics, archaeological groups are created whose chronological sequence is established using tra-ditional archaeological methods. The OxCal pro-gramme then computes the most probable correla-tion of radiocarbon dates with the archaeological sequence. The sequencing of the calibrated radio-carbon dates provides the calibrated radiocarbon intervals as areas under the white curves as pre-sented in Figure 11. The constraints provided by archaeology regarding the occupation sequence of the sites from Brunn enables the reduction of the radiocarbon dating intervals to the black ar-eas. The irregular shape of the calibration curve is used to find the best fit and, at the same time, a correlation coefficient is maximized. The value of A obtained thus (the correlation coefficient) was 100.4%. Seeing that a value of 60% already offers a sufficiently positive correlation between the radio-carbon dates and the archaeological groups, the results with this significantly higher value suggest

2 VERA: Vienna Environmental Research Accelerator.

Fig. 8. Brunn am Gebirge — barbotine decorated pottery from Site 2


265

that the correlation is good. We used only 39 of the ca. 60 dates for sequencing. We had to omit a part of the available data from this evaluation because the mod-el used for sequencing assumes that the sites actually formed a genuine sequence. However, the omitted values suggested that there was a considerable chrono-logical overlap between the sites, a situation with which sequenc-ing cannot deal (yet). The results of the sequencing are presented in Figure 12. The earliest site (Site 2a) gave a mean calibration interval of 5670–5450, meaning that the occupation of the earli-est settlement began sometime in the 57th century. Site 2a seems to have had a very long occupa-tion of about 220 years. The next site, Site 2b, had a shorter use-life of about 37 years, from 5450 to 5413. Site 3 dates from the 54th century, with an occupation from 5413 to 5350 (63 years). Site 1 falls into the 52nd century, while Site 6 represents the current end of the Brunn sequence with its mean dates of between 5215 and 5100 BC.

For a comparison, we performed the sequenc-ing of the published radiocarbon dates from the Starčevo distribution.3 The results are presented in Figure 13. The results indicated that the mon-ochrome pre-Starčevo phase began around 6080 and lasted until around 5750. It must be noted, however, that only three radiocarbon dates were available for this phase. More dates, altogether six-teen, were available for the next phase, represent-ed by White on Red wares. These yielded a span of about 50 years between 5750 and 5700. The five dates available for the ensuing phase (represented by Linear wares) indicated a duration of no more than 30 years from about 5700 to 5670. Altogether 13 dates were used for the Spiraloid phase, which gave a span of 200 years from 5670 to about 5470. The comparison of the Brunn sequence with the Starčevo chronology reflects a major overlap be-tween the two from the end of the Linear to the

3 We used the radiocarbon dates from the Starčevo distribution published by Paolo Biagi and Michaela Spataro (Biagi–Spataro 2005).

end of the Spiraloid phase, suggesting that the occupation of the Brunn settlement can be cor-related with a part of Early Starčevo Linear B to the end of the Spiraloid phase (Spiraloid B). Ac-cording to Gheorghe Lazarovici, the last Starčevo phase (Phase IV) coincides with the rise of the Vinča A phase between 5470 and 5390.

The evaluation of the find material from Brunn Wolfholz has been made possible by the applica-tion of new methods, especially the creation and continuous enlargement of the Montelius Image Database. Named after the Swedish archaeologist

Fig. 9. Brunn am Gebirge — figurine face and leg from Brunn 2a (photo by P. Sta-dler, drawing by N. Kotova)

site number of samples 1 σ range Bc 2 σ range Bc

2a 12 5540–5210 5750–5050

2b 14 5480–5280 5650–5050

3 24 5450–5200 5700–4950

4 5 5390–5300 5480–5200

1 4 5310–5060 5370–4940

5 1 5305–5255 5320–5200

Total 60 5480–5060 5700–5000

Fig. 10. Brunn am Gebirge — group calibrations of radiocarbon dates


266

Atmospheric data from Reimer et al (2004);OxCal v3.10 Bronk Ramsey (2005); cub r:5 sd:12 prob usp[chron]

Sequence Brunn Wolfholz, 7 Fundstellen: 2a,2b,3,4,5,1,6

6500BC 6000BC 5500BC 5000BC

Calendar date

Sequence Brunn Wolfholz, 7 Fundstellen: 2a,2b,3,4,5,1,6 {A=100.4%(A'c= 60.0%)}

Boundary Start Fdst2a

Phase Fdst2a

ETH 11148 76.0%

Ki 13615 70.9%

Ki 13612 99.9%

ETH 13538 111.7%

ETH 13537 117.5%

VERA 1800 98.1%

VERA 1799 100.0%

ETH 11131 92.1%

ETH 11145 87.1%

Boundary Fdst2a/Fdst2b

Phase Fdst2b

ETH 11143 108.2%

ETH 11139 127.0%

VERA 1797 98.0%

VERA 202 111.0%

VERA 199 87.6%

ETH 11138 107.9%

VERA 200 76.0%

Boundary Fdst2b/Fdst3

Phase Fdst3

ETH 11124 103.1%

VERA 1805 91.0%

Ki 13614 108.5%

VERA 201 104.4%

ETH 11133 119.6%

Fig. 11. Brunn am Gebirge — sequencing of 39 radiocarbon dates from Sites 2a, 2b, 3, 4, 5, 1 and 6


267

Atmospheric data from Reimer et al (2004);OxCal v3.10 Bronk Ramsey (2005); cub r:5 sd:12 prob usp[chron]

Sequence Brunn Wolfholz, 7 Fundstellen: 2a,2b,3,4,5,1,6

6000BC 5500BC 5000BC 4500BC

Calendar date

Phase ETH 11130 110.6%

ETH 11128 110.2%

VERA 1806 48.1%

Boundary Fdst3/Fdst4

Phase Fdst4

VERA-192 96.6%

VERA-193 133.1%

VERA-195 124.7%

VERA-197 137.4%


Phase Fdst5

VERA 1812 97.0%


Phase Fdst1

VERA 3414 93.1%

VERA 3415 90.6%

ETH 11121 134.3%

ETH 11123 139.4%

ETH 11125 123.9%

Ki 13611 86.0%

ETH 11126 56.3%


Phase Fdst6

VERA 4797 104.9%

VERA 4798 104.7%

VERA 4799 103.5%

Boundary End Fdst6

Sequence Brunn Wolfholz, 7 Fundstellen: 2a,2b,3,4,5,1,6 {A=100.4%(A'c= 60.0%)}

Phase Fdst3

Fig. 11. continued


268

Oskar Montelius (1843–1921),4 the database was created in Vienna in 1999; it now contains over 630,000 images of prehistoric and early medieval assemblages from Europe, assembled by some sixty archaeologists, students, and volunteers. The Early Neolithic section contains some 70,000 pub-lished artefacts taken from the Alföld Linearband-keramik, Bucovaţ, Bükk, Impressokeramik Körös, Linearbandkeramik, Starčevo, Stichbandkeramik, Szakálhát, Szatmár, Vinča, Vinča–Pločnik and Želiezovce cultures.

The images entered into the Montelius Image Database provide the basis for further evaluations. The starting points are provided by the “raw” pub-lications, either monographs or articles. Illustra-tion plates displaying assemblages are scanned

4 Oskar Montelius refined the concept of closed find contexts, first introduced by Christian Jürgensen Thomsen, and laid down the principles of archaeological typology as a key method for ar-chaeological research (Montelius 1903).

and individual artefacts are then separated by means of image processing. Every single arte-fact is described using the Mon-teliusEntry programme. “Raw” publications are also a source of written information, which can be catalogued together with ar-tefact images. By means of the Montelius section of our Win-Serion programme package, im-ages can be presented either in a complex mode or a typological mode. WinSerion allows differ-ent types of seriations, enabling the identification of possible patterns in the studied archae-ological material. The local or global maps generated using a basic AutoCad map offer the op-portunity of mapping finds by means of a WinSerion embed-ded Geographical Information System feature. WinSerion also allows users to evaluate and au-tomatically compare all maps produced in this manner with the help of an algorithm known as the Analysis of the N-Next Neighbours (ANN). Seriation produces relative chronologies,

which can then be compared with the results of the spatial analysis performed by means of ANN. Absolute data allow an association between rela-tive chronologies and absolute dates. The applied method (sequencing) is based on Bayesian statis-tics and its primary purpose is to translate a rela-tive chronology into an absolute one.

The database comprises a collection of images of archaeological artefacts which can be displayed in at least two different modes. The complex view mode differs little from the way in which new ar-chaeological information is presented visually in most publications, i.e. according to closed find con-texts (burial, settlement feature or hoard assem-blages). In contrast, artefact images are grouped according to formal similarity in the typological mode, the basic procedure for working with typol-ogy. In the typological mode, images can be moved using the programme’s drag ‘n drop feature. Any changes made in the typology structure are imme-

data on that 2 σ level, years Bc

samplesTime span beginning

with highest probabilityTime span end with highest probability

duration

Phase Number Min. Max. Mw Min. Max. Mw Min. Max. Mw

Mono chrome

3 6170 5990 6080 5800 5715 5760 -190 455 320

White on Red

16 5800 5715 5760 5730 5670 5700 15 130 60

Linear 5 5730 5670 5700 5710 5630 5670 40 100 30

Spiraloid 13 5710 5630 5670 5530 5400 5470 -100 310 200

IV 4 5530 5400 5470 5470 5210 5340 70 320 130

41 740

data on 2 σ level, years Bc

samplesTime span start with highest probability

Time span end with highest probability

duration

Site Number Min. Max. Mean Min. Max. Mean Min. Max. Mean

2a 9 5770 5570 5670 5495 5405 5450 75 365 220

2b 7 5495 5405 5450 5460 5365 5413 -55 130 38

3 8 5460 5365 5413 5380 5320 5350 -15 140 63

4 4 5380 5320 5350 5355 5280 5318 -35 100 33

5 1 5355 5280 5318 5310 5225 5268 -30 130 50

1 7 5310 5225 5268 5290 5140 5215 -65 170 53

6 3 5290 5140 5215 5220 4980 5100 -80 310 115

39 570

Fig. 12. Absolute chronology of Brunn by sequencing of different sites

Fig. 13. Brunn am Gebirge — sequencing of Starčevo-Phases


269

diately imported into the “background” database. A number of different functions provide support for work on the typology of such an enormous ma-terial. Importing the image of a particular artefact into the database takes less than 60 seconds.5 The search for possible formal analogies to a particular artefact takes only about 30 seconds in the typolo-gy mode of MonteliusEditor.6 The allocation of one image to an existing type takes a few seconds more. A new type can be easily created by creating a new folder. An existing type can be easily split up into two or more sub-types. In sum, one great advantage over conventional typological methods is that com-parisons can thus be made a hundred times faster than normally. Aside from these two views, there are several other view options (such as like Worker, Quote, Date&Time, Culture and Site View). A new View can be created quite easily if necessary.7

5 The input is performed with the MonteliusEntry programme. For more information, cp. http://winserion.org/LVAS/QAM/Gal-lery_MonteliusEntry_En.htm

6 Viewing and editing the contents of the Montelius Image Da-tabase is performed with the MonteliusEditor programme. For more information, cp. http://winserion.org/LVAS/QAM/Galle-ry_MonteliusEditor_En.htm

7 For more information on this software and the possibilities of free usage in joint projects, cp. http://winserion.org/

An image database has been created for the ce-ramics as part of the preparation for the volume mentioned in the above (Stadler 2005) and a ty-pological framework was constructed with help of Michaela Lochner (Lochner in press) and Eva Lenneis (Lenneis in press). All ceramics types for Sites 2a, 2b and 1 have been plotted on the excava-tion plan; a statistical analysis revealed which of these distributions were non-random. The non-random distributions are evaluated together with the “Analysis of the N Next Neighbours”, which is designed to identify a combination map for all other mappings. To better understand possible re-lationships between different pits containing sim-ilar types ceramic, an example of the results with a network map is shown in Figure 14. Meaning-ful relations appear as lines between the pits con-taining the same types while the line width corre-sponds to the number of different relations.

inTerpreTaTion

The available data indicates major changes in the course of time across the sites at Brunn Wolfholz. The most interesting question is whether the site’s

Fig. 14. Analysis of the N-Next Neighbours, network map


270

occupants arrived from a region lying to the south-east or whether the settlement was established by a local Mesolithic population which adopted farm-ing under influences from the south-east.

The pottery from Sites 2a and 2b is character-ised by very coarse wares made with organic tem-per fired at a very low temperature. This pottery is at the most decorated with applied ornaments, if ornamented at all. Incised lines, the typical deco-ration of the Linear Pottery culture, are very rare. Linear patterns increased in the course of time, a development culminating at Site 1 whose ceram-ic inventory comprises “classical” Linear Pottery vessels with rich repertoire of incised decoration and a surface coated with graphite. Only the lat-est settlement, Site 6, is located completely in the south; dating from after about 5200 BC, this set-tlement section yielded pottery with linear and Notenkopf patterns, as well as designs created from wide bands.

An interesting development can also be noted in the lithic material. The number of stone im-

plements recovered from the earliest sites (Sites 2a and 2b) is very high. The stone implements were predominantly fashioned from imported raw material whose source lies in Transdanubia in Hungary, namely from Szentgál in the Bakony Woods near Lake Balaton. In the course of time, the amount of lithic artefacts decreased and local raw material of the Mauer–Antonshöhe type was used for their manufacture instead of imported material.

In a recent project, we studied the ceramics from the earliest Linear Pottery culture sites in Austria, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Croatia. We found that the assemblage from Sites 2a and 2b, representing the earliest occupation at Brunn, are unique among the Linear Pottery settlements. The pottery from these sites was manufactured using abundant organic tempering agents; in contrast, the wares from other early Linear Pot-tery sites were fashioned from clay tempered with a combination of organic matter, sand and mica. Another difference regarding the material from

Fig. 15. Parallels to various vessels from Brunn (5–10) from sites yielding pottery of the Early Starčevo Linear B phase in Hungary (1–2: Barcs, 3–4: Lánycsók after Kalicz 1990)


271

Brunn 2a and 2b is the low number of sherds from fine pottery.

The vessels from Brunn 2a and 2b compare best with the Early Starčevo wares of the Linear B phase from Croatia and from Transdanubia in Hungary. In addition to highly similar vessel forms and decorative patterns, as well as similar figurines, another shared feature is that the clay used for producing these wares was tempered with a large amount of organic matter. The com-mon vessel forms include pedestalled vessels (Fig. 15. 3–4, 8–10), especially the variants with globu-lar vessel, which are lacking from the Linear Pot-tery culture. Some bowls are decorated with a rib on the lower part (Fig. 15. 1–2, 5–7).

While the pottery from Brunn 2a has much in common with Starčevo Linear B wares in Trans-danubia on the whole, it is practically identical with the Starčevo Linear B vessels from Croatia. The pottery of Brunn 2a and of the early Starčevo culture in Croatia contains far more organic tem-per than the Starčevo Linear B pottery in Hunga-ry. In addition to the similar manufacturing tech-

niques and vessel shapes, another shared trait is an uncommon variant of linear ornamentation, especially the lines on horizontal handles, and a few coarse pots with painted decoration.

Seeing that the Brunn 2a site is later than the Starčevo Linear B sites in Croatia on the testimo-ny of the radiocarbon dates, it seems reasonable to assume that the Brunn 2a assemblage was the result of a long development of the cultural tradi-tions of a population group which had migrated from the territory of modern Croatia (and perhaps Serbia), and had perhaps assimilated local Meso-lithic groups. The blend of the two populations led to the emergence of a new culture, namely the Lin-ear Pottery culture with its set of new tools, along-side new, more rudimentary pottery wares with-out fine vessels and, probably, new house forms.8

8 The problem is the lack of longhouses in the Starčevo culture. Neither have longhouses been found in the Malo Korenovo cul-ture, the local LBK development in the Starčevo area; however, it seems likely that archaeological investigations conducted over larger areas will lead to the discovery of longhouses in the Malo Korenovo culture and, perhaps in the Starčevo distribution too.

Fig. 16. Parallels to various vessels from Brunn (6–12) from sites yielding pottery of the Late Starčevo Spiraloid B phase in Hungary (1: Barcs, 4–5: Kaposvár after Kalicz 1990) and Croatia (2–3: Vinkovci)


272

Some Starčevo Linear B traditions were retained in the pottery manufacture of the new culture, principally the manufacture of coarse vessels us-ing large amounts of organic temper.

A tentative reconstruction of the process lead-ing to the formation of the earliest Linear Pot-tery culture can be conceptualised as follows. The emergence of the Linear Pottery culture was close-ly connected with the environmental and climatic changes during the Early Neolithic. According to Róbert Kertész and Pál Sümegi, the Central Eu-ropean–Balkanic agro-ecological barrier ran near Lake Balaton in central Transdanubia (Kertész–Sümegi 2001). The barrier marked the northern boundary of the sub-Mediterranean climatic, faunal and floral zones. The advance of Neolithic cultures with Balkanic roots (Starčevo and Körös) halted along this line because their economy was adapted to the sub-Mediterranean zone. But this scheme is only valid for the wetter period around 6000–5600 BC, when the late Starčevo sites were still occupied. All of these lie in the sub-Mediter-ranean oak forest belt.

However, this agro-ecological barrier could easily have been disturbed during a period of aridity and drier climate. An especially arid peri-od across all of Eastern Europe has been identified around 6200–6000 BC (Spiridonova–Lavrushin 1997; Bezysko–Kotova–Kovalyuh 2000), af-fecting also the Balkans and Central Europe. One typical trait of this aridity was that the natural-

climatic zones shifted north-ward. For example, the Eastern Europe steppe encroached on the forest-steppe zone and ex-tended to the southern bound-ary of the modern forest zone. A similar process probably took place on the territory of modern Serbia, Croatia and Hungary.

This strong aridity led to a de-terioration in the living circum-stances of early farmers. Some groups of the Early Starčevo population migrated northward along the Danube, covering a distance of over 620 km. This migration probably resolved, in part, the problem of population density too, an important aspect during times of aridity, when the

wild animal stocks decreased and the pasturing areas, as well as crop yields of domestic plants di-minished.

Some migrant groups apparently settled in the Danube–Drava Interfluve, as indicated by two set-tlements of the Starčevo Linear B period (Lány-csók and Barcs) investigated in that region. Both settlements have been dated to around 5700 BC; their pottery included fine and coarse ceram-ics alike. The coarse wares of these sites differed from the Starčevo pottery of Croatia and Brunn 2 in that less organic matter was used for tempering the clay.

Other groups of the Early Starčevo popula-tion advanced as far as central Transdanubia and southern Austria during this arid period. Mod-ern Austria has a damper and colder climate than Serbia, Croatia and southern Hungary, a situation which does not differ much from that in prehis-tory.

The migration along the Danube was probably a long process, perhaps lasting as long as a hun-dred years, even though the distance itself could have been covered in a much shorter time. It is possible that the earliest occupation at the Brunn Wolfholz settlement has not been found yet, see-ing that the site has been excavated only partially. During the migration or in the yet undiscovered earliest settlement at Brunn, the migrants estab-lished contact with the local Mesolithic popula-tion and relinquished an important part of their

Fig. 17. The Carpathian Basin in the mid-6th millennium BC (after Bánffy 2000, Fig. 1, modified by P. Stadler)


273

own culture in the process, namely their fine painted wares. Another possible explanation for the lack of fine painted pottery is that fine wares were only produced in one centre in the Starčevo distribution and that the farther a settlement lay from this centre, the fewer the vessels reaching its occupants. The inhabitants of the Brunn 2 settle-ment apparently only used locally produced coarse pottery and tools manufactured from the raw ma-terial obtained from the lithic deposits at Szentgál in north-western Hungary.

During the formation of the new Linear Pot-tery culture, contacts with the Starčevo culture of Hungary and Croatia were preserved and the earliest Neolithic population in Austria remained under cultural impacts from the late Starčevo culture until the end of the Starčevo sequence as shown by the similar vessel types. The bowls with concave upper part (Fig. 16. 6–7), vessels with ver-tical neck (Fig. 16. 3, 10) or biconical bowls (Fig. 16. 4–5, 11–12) from Brunn 2b resemble the pot-tery of the Late Starčevo culture (the Spiraloid B phase).

It is difficult to determine when exactly the inhabitants of the Brunn 2 settlement arrived to Lower Austria and whence they came. What is certain is that Brunn 2 is the currently known earliest Linear Pottery site in Europe and that it shows one particular variant of the formation of this culture.

The Brunn 2a assemblage reflects one variant of the neolithisation process involving the migra-tion of early farmers. In the course of the migra-tion, the migrants’ culture declined to some ex-tent, reflected by the disappearance of the most sophisticated pottery wares (painted fine ceram-ics), while at the same time they adopted certain traditions of the local Mesolithic population. The newcomers preserved their subsistence practices based on crop cultivation and animal husbandry,

as well as some cults, which are reflected in hu-man figurines. One innovation was the appear-ance of a new house type (the longhouse with its elaborate post construction) ― if it really was new ― and certain tool types, such as long trapezes, known from Brunn 2 and the Mesolithic sites of Hungary (Mateiciucová 2004, 99).

Figure 17 shows the distribution of the early LBK and the early Alföld LBK based on the cur-rent evidence as presented by Hungarian archae-ologists (Bánffy 2000, Fig. 1), who noted that the early LBK developed north of the Starčevo distri-bution, while the early Alföld LBK appeared north of the Körös distribution. This broad picture now needs to be modified owing to the discovery of a Starčevo site far beyond the culture’s core distri-bution. It seems to us that there was a migration, marked by an arrow, from the Starčevo territory in modern Croatia (or Serbia) along the Danube directly to a location in the Vienna Basin, namely to Brunn am Gebirge.

This migration took place during Early Starčevo Linear B phase or at its end (or perhaps even earlier?). The early settlers at Brunn Wolfholz maintained contact with their homeland until the end of the Starčevo culture. At the same time, this pilot settlement may also have influenced the de-velopment of the early Linear Pottery culture in Hungary, although more intensive cultural im-pacts probably arrived directly from the original Starčevo distribution. Is it possible that this pi-lot settlement was not the single one of its kind? I strongly suspect that there must be other sites too, perhaps in Burgenland and in Transdanubia in Hungary; while the current situation is a reflec-tion of the current state of research, I am confi-dent that other sites will be discovered sooner or later despite the poor research in Burgenland, as shown by the findings of the excavations at Neck-enmarkt.9

9 It is regrettable that no other Austrian sites contemporary with Brunn am Gebirge, Site 2 were excavated as part of a German pro-ject (Lenneis–Lüning 2001).


274

references

Bánffy, E. 2000: The late Starčevo and the earliest Linear Pottery groups in Western Transdanubia. Documenta Praehistorica 27 (2000) 173–185.

Bezysko, L.–Kotova, N. C.–Kovalyuh, N. N. 2000: Безусько, Л. Г.–Котова, Н. С–Ковалюх, Н. Н.: Население эпохи неолита – раннего энеолита западного Приазовья и окружающая среда. Старожитності степового Причорномор”я і Криму – Випуск УШ – Запоріжжя, 89–108.

Biagi, P.–Spataro, M. 2005: New observations on the radiocarbon chronology of the Starčevo–Criş and Körös cultures. In: Nikolova, L.–Fritz, J.–Higgins, J. (eds): Prehistoric Archaeology and Anthropological Theory and Education: Archaeology, Cultural Anthropology, Genealogy, Student Anthropological Projects. Reports of Prehistoric Research Projects 6–7, Salt Lake City 2005, 35–40.

Bronk Ramsey, C. 1995: Radiocarbon Calibration and Analysis of Stratigraphy: The OxCal Program. Radiocar-bon 37 (1995) 425–430.

Gerold, F.–Teschler-Nicola, M. in press: Die menschlichen Skelettreste aus der frühneolithischen Siedlung von Brunn am Gebirge. In: Stadler–Kotova in press.

Gronenborn, D. 1997: Silexartefakte der ältestbandkeramischen Kultur. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistori-schen Archäologie 37, Bonn.

Kalicz, N. 1990: Frühneolithische Siedlungsfunde aus Südwestungarn. Inventaria Praehistorica Hungariae 4, Budapest.

Kalicz, N. 1993: The Early Phases of the Neolithic in Western Hungary (Transdanubia). Poročilo raziskovanju paleolita, neolita in eneolita v Sloveniji 21 (1993) 85–135.

Kertész, R.–Sümegi, P. 2001: Theories, critiques and a model: Why did the expansion of the Körös–Starčevo stop in the centre of the Carpathian Basin? In: Kertész, R.–Makkay, J. (eds): From the Mesolithic to the Neolithic. Proceedings of the International Archaeological Conference held in the Damjanich Museum of Szolnok, September 22–27, 1996. Archaeolingua 11, Budapest 2001, 225–246.

Lenneis, E. in press: Zu einigen wesentlichen Merkmalen der Keramik von Brunn. In: Stadler–Kotova in press.Lenneis, E.–Lüning, J. 2001: Die altbandkeramischen Siedlungen von Neckenmarkt und Strögen. Universitäts-

forschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 82, Bonn.Lochner, M. in press: Die Erfassung der Keramik. In: Stadler–Kotova in press.Makkay, J. 1978: Excavations at Bicske I: The Early Neolithic – The earliest Linear Band Ceramic. Alba Regia 16

(1978) 9–60.Mateiciucová, I. 2002: Silexartefakte der ältesten und älteren Linearbandkeramik aus Brunn-am Gebirge,

Niederösterreich (Vorbericht). In: Bánffy, E. (ed.): Prehistoric Studies in memoriam Ida Bognár-Kutzián. Antaeus 25 (2002) 169–188.

Mateiciucová, I. 2004. Mesolithic traditions and the origin of the Linear Pottery culture (LBK). In: Alena, L.–Marek, Z. (eds): LBK Dialogues. British Archaeological Reports–International Series 1304, Oxford 2004, 91–108.

Mateiciucová, I. 2008: The beginnings of the Neolithic in Central Europe in the light of research into the chipped stone industry of early farming (LBK) communities in Moravia and Lower Austria, 5700–4900 BC. Disser-tationes Archaeologicae Brunenses–Pragensesque 4, Praha–Brno.

Montelius, O. 1903: Die älteren Kulturperioden im Orient und in Europa. I. Die Methode. Stockholm.Pavúk, J. 2004: Early Linear Pottery Culture in Slovakia and the Neolithisation of Central Europe. In: Alena,

L.–Marek, Z. (eds): LBK Dialogues. British Archaeological Reports–International Series 1304, Oxford 2004, 71–82.

Pucher, E. 1998: Die Tierknochen des linearbandkeramischen Siedlungsplatzes Brunn am Gebirge (Niederös-terreich). In: Anreiter, P.–Bartosiewicz, L.–Jerem, E.–Meid, W. (eds): Man and the Animal World. Studies in Archaeozoology, Archaeology, Anthropology and Palaeolinguistics in memoriam Sándor Bökönyi. Ar-chaeolingua 8, Budapest 1998, 465–479.

Pucher, E. in press: Die Tierknochen der Fundstellen von Brunn. In: Stadler–Kotova in press.Reimer, P. J.– Baillie, M. G. L.–Bard, E.–Bayliss, A.–Warren Beck, J. W.–Bertrand, C. J. H.–Blackwell,

P. G.–Buck, C. E.–Burr, G. S.–Cutler, K. B.–Damon, P. E.–Edwards, R. L.–Fairbanks, R. G.–Friedrich, M.–Guilderson, T. P.–Hogg, A. G.–Hughen, K. A.–Kromer, B.–McCormac, G.–Manning, S.–Bronk Ramsey, C.–Reimer, R. W.–Remmele, S.–Southon, J. R.–Stuiver, M.–Talamo, S.–Taylor, F. W.–van der Plicht, J.–Weyhenmeyer, C. E. 2004: IntCal04 terrestrial radiocarbon age calibration, 0–26 cal Kyr BP. Radiocarbon 46 (2004) 1029–1058.


275

Sauer, R. in press: Petrographische und mineralogische Untersuchungen an Keramikproben und Sediment-proben. In: Stadler–Kotova in press.

Spiridonova, E.–Lavryusin, Ju. 1997: Спиридонова, Е.–Лаврушин, Ю. А.: Корреляция геолого–палеоэко-логических событий голоцена арктической, бораеальной и аридной зон Восточной Европы. In: Четвертичная геология и палеогеография России. Москва 1997, 151–170.

Stadler, P. 1997: Die Homepage der Archäologischen Ausgrabung einer Frühneolithischen Siedlung von Brunn am Gebirge, Flur Wolfsholz (6. Jahrtausend v. Chr.) http://winserion.org/Brunn/index.html

Stadler, P. 2005: Quantitative Studien zur Archäologie der Awaren I. Mit Beiträgen von Walter Kutschera, Wal-ter Pohl und Eva Maria Wild. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch–historische Klasse, Mitteilungen der Prähistorischen Kommission 60, Wien.

Stadler, P.–Kotova, N. in press: Brunn am Gebirge Wolfholz, settlement of the oldest LBK. The ceramics from site 2.

Stadler, P.–Ruttkay, E.–Doneus, M.–Friesinger, H.–Lauermann, E.–Kutschera, W.–Neubauer, W.–Neugebauer-Maresch, C.–Trnka, G.–Weninger, F.–Wild, E. M. 2006: Absolutchronologie der Mähr-isch–Ostösterreichischen Gruppe (MOG) der bemalten Keramik aufgrund von neuen 14C-Datierungen. Archäologie Österreichs 17/2 (2006) 53–81.

Stäuble, H. 2005: Häuser und absolute Chronologie der ältesten Bandkeramik. Universitätsforschungen zur prähostorischen Archäologie 117, Bonn.

StadlerP_2013a

Documents

Transcript of StadlerP_2013a