Hunter-Gatherers in the Carpathian Basin and the Spread of Agriculture in

By William J. Eichmann ......

University of Wisconsin, Madison Archaeological Institute of the [email protected] Hungarian Academy of Sciences 1014, Úri u. 49, Advisers: Dr. Eszter Bánffy and Dr. Róbert Kertész ......

Seminal research in the 1970’s resulted in the recognition that events in Transdanubia (western ) during the 6th millennium B.C. were pivotal to the spread of agriculture to north . Two perspectives have figured prominently in the debate: 1) agriculture was directly spread by migrating agricultural populations; and 2) agriculture spread through the adoption of agricultural practices by indigenous hunter- gatherer populations. In Hungary the spread of agriculture has primarily been approached from the perspective of the first farmers (). Limited archaeological evidence from Mesolithic hunter-gatherers during the Early Holocene (~10,000-6,000 B.C.) in the Carpathian Basin has made it difficult to consider their role in the entire process. It is argued that the complex process of agricultural spread may be more comprehensible if research is specifically directed toward identifying long term evolutionary trends in Mesolithic hunter-gatherer society. This paper provides a summary of extant evidence from the Mesolithic and Neolithic in Hungary, with an emphasis on Transdanubia, and presents some of the preliminary results of recent research on the Mesolithic.

Introduction The prehistoric spread of agriculture B.C. the first agricultural societies was the impetus for one of the most (Neolithic) in Europe appeared in significant reorganizations of human Greece, and by the early 4th millennium society. In the middle 7th millennium B.C. nearly the entire European

161 Student Conference 2004 continent was more or less dependent on the Two basic mechanisms have been enlisted by-products of domestic animals and plants. to explain the spread of agriculture: 1.) The Neolithic is often associated with the Migration – spread of agricultural societies first ceramics and a more sedentary life in through movement of agriculturalists; 2.) villages. Within the past quarter century the Diffusion – indigenous hunter-gatherers Carpathian Basin, and Transdanubia in adopt items, ideas and practices associated particular, has been identified as one of the with agricultural society (domestic plants more important for understanding and animals, , etc.). Migration and the Neolithization of Europe. , Diffusion represent the ends of a variagated as a discipline, developed in Europe during spectrum of mechanisms, recently summa- the mid to late 19th century (Trigger 1989). rized by Zvelebil (2000), including folk This long research tradition has produced an migration, demic diffusion, elite dominance, unprecedented volume of data for examining community infiltration, leapfrog coloniza- the spread of agriculture in Europe. tion, exchange in frontier zones, and - V. Gordan Childe, an influential early dis- al exchange. Apart from the slipperiness in cussant, characterized the spread of agricul- defining and distinguishing between hunter- ture as a revolutionary event in which gatherers and farmers during transitional Neolithic societies demographically invigor- stages (e.g. see Gronenborn 2003: 86; Smith ated by a more efficient productive economy 2001), it certainly the case that agriculture spread rapidly across the European conti- spread through a variety of mechanisms with nent from an initial foothold in Southeast- different underlying causes at different times ern Europe (Childe 1929). He considered and places. Determining which mechanism that most important innovations of cultural dominated in particular situations hinges import, and especially agriculture, derived upon the extent to which we can recognize from South West or the Orient and continuity or discontinuity amongst differ- were transmitted throughout Europe along ent categories of archaeological evidence. In the corridor. Childe, an open Marx- order to address the issue of continuity we ist, presented views that were at the time must incorporate a substantial understand- quite novel and contradictory to researchers ing of long-term trends in the cultural evo- who, often with strong nationalist senti- lution of the different peoples involved in ments, advocated local origins for agricul- the process. In the case of the Transdanubia ture in Europe. Subsequent research has this would include both early agricultural- convincingly demonstrated that, as Childe ists, the Early Neolithic Starçevo culture had originally proposed, the earliest center and Middle Neolithic Linearbandkeramik of agricultural origins relevant to Europe culture (LBK), in addition to the indigenous was indeed located in South West Asia (Bar- Late Mesolithic hunter-gather population. Yosef and Meadow 1995; Harris 1996). The An informed examination of the transition basic route of agricultural expansion in to agriculture in the Carpathian Basin Europe was theoretically established from should consider both the long-term evolu- South West Asia, across the Anatolian Pen- tionary trajectories of Mesolithic hunter- ninsula, up the Balkan Peninsula, through gatherers of indigenous origin and Neolith- the Carpathian Basin, and progressing ic agriculturalists of indeterminate indige- northwards unto the North European Plain. nous or exogenous origins. Unfortunately, with rare exceptions (see Kertész 1996b,

162 Mr. William J. Eichmann. Mesolithic Hunter-Gatherers

2002), there is almost no robust evidence Mesolithic Hunter-gatherers and bespeaking the existence of Mesolithic pop- Their Dynamic Environment ulations in Hungary. The beginning of the Mesolithic period, or Strong evidence garnered from genetics of Middle , is roughly coeval with modern European populations (Richards the shift from Glacial (Pleistocene) to non- 2003; Richards, et al. 2000) and Glacial (Holocene) climate in Europe, palaeobotony (Schweizer 2001; Sümegi occurring at roughly 10,000 cal. B.C., or 2004) suggest that Mesolithic hunter-gath- 10,000 uncal. B.P. Changes in Climate had erers were present and partook in the significant impacts on European flora and neolithization of the Carpathian Basin and fauna (Roberts 1989), as as the humans Central Europe. However, minimal direct depending on these resources (Kozlowski archaeological evidence for Mesolithic and Kozlowski 1979). The climatic and veg- hunter-gatherers has often prevented discus- etation changes that are associated with sion from moving beyond hypothetical Pleistocene-Holocene boundary have been statements (e.g. Chapman 1985). This paper well documented throughout Europe and examines the significance of Mesolithic Hungary (e.g. Sümegi, Krolopp, et al. 2002); hunter-gatherers to the spread of agriculture although the environmental changes associ- in the Transdanubian region of Hungary and ated with the Holocene began earlier in Europe in general. The following themes Hungary than the traditionally assigned date are high lighted: 1) the historical context and of 10,000 B.C. Unlike many regions in current status of Mesolithic research in Europe, the volume of archaeological evi- Europe and Hungary, with an emphasis on dence for Mesolithic hunter-gatherers in Transdanubia; 2) background to the origins southeastern Europe, and Carpathian Basin and spread of Early Neolithic societies in in particular, is conspicuously minimal dur- Europe; 3) a more specific treatment of our ing the Late Pleistocene and Early current understanding of Early Neolithic Holocene. societies in the Carpathian Basin, again Understanding the manner in which emphasizing Transdanubia, and their role in hunter-gatherers adapted to dynamic cli- the transmission of agriculture to North matic and environmental change is critical Central Europe; 4) possible directions for to understanding the spread of agriculture. future research into Mesolithic hunter-gath- Traditionally, the long term evolutionary erer research in Hungary; and 5.) prelimi- tendencies of southeastern European nary results from research on the Hungarian Neolithic societies are presented in pain Mesolithic by Róbert Kertész, Tibor Mar- staking detail. In Hungary Mesolithic ton, Eszter Bánffy, and myself. I argue that hunter-gatherers are generally only men- Mesolithic participants in the neolithization tioned when the two worlds collide, and of the Carpathian Basin have been under- even then their behaviors and their very represented for a variety of historical reasons existance have remained primarily within and insufficient research. The situation can the hypothetical realm. best be rectified through research aimed at Research exploring the question of why revision of poorly investigated sites of possi- agriculture may or may not have struck ble Mesolithic origin in conjunction with hunter-gatherers as an attractive subsistence prospecting for new sites. strategy has been explored in other parts of Europe and has significantly improved the

163 Student Conference 2004 character of discussions on the spread of change (Fisher 2002). In response to agriculture (e.g. see Zvelebil and Rowley- changes in resource distribution Mesolithic Conwy 1984). The goal of such research has hunter-gatherers were confronted with two been to move beyond a flat characterization basic choices: 1) extensification through of hunter-gatherers toward a temporally and increased mobility in order to exploit a spatially textured picture of the ubiquitous greater area, or 2) intensification on particu- Mesolithic substrate upon which agricultur- lar resources within a smaller area. Low lev- al practices were transposed. Thus the el oscillation between strategies and mixing spread of agriculture in the Carpathian of strategies probably prevailed during dif- Basin can best be understood through the ferent times and conditions, and under- incorporation of evidence bearing on the standing the character of these oscillations is long-term evolutionary trajectory of hunter- significant to understanding longer-term gatherer society from the Late Pleistocene trends in hunter-gatherer cultural evolution. into the Early Holocene. The current evi- Additionally, it is likely that different com- dence for Mesolithic hunter-gatherers in the ponents of the Late Pleistocene hunter- Carpathain Basin is minimal and patchily gatherer social and technological world were distributed, but some of the initial pieces of modified or differentially emphasized dur- information can be put in place. In the fol- ing the Early Holocene. The Mesolithic has lowing paragraphs I will present the climat- been generally associated with ic and environmental changes in the in which locally procured stone was fash- Carpathian Basin at the Pleistocene- ioned into geometric or small Holocene boundary and summarize our cur- blades that were inserted into slotted bone rent understanding of Late and or wood to form composite tools (e.g. see Mesolithic hunter-gatherers in the Bárta 1985; Bárta 1990). The bow and Carpathian Basin and adjacent regions. , in usage since the Late Pleistocene, The shift from hunting Pleistocene large was probably one of the most important bodied herd mammals, abundantly present components in Mesolithic hunting strategies at predictable locations, to more dispersed (Bergman 1993), and it is possible that Holocene faunal species found in smaller domestic dogs were also used in the pursuit herds or as isolated individuals probably of game. An increased usage of passive hunt- required that hunter-gatherers adopt new ing strategies (e.g. trapping, nets, etc.) and searching and hunting strategies. This topic reliance on aquatic resources have been pos- has received a significant amount of atten- tulated as two of the most important ways in tion in theoretical debates regarding the which European hunter-gatherers managed relationship between the environmental to reduce increasing costs of high mobility changes impacting resource distribution and and squeeze more from a smaller territory the evolution of hunter-gatherer food-get- (Binford 1990, 2001; Holliday 1998). The ting strategies; particularly with regard to utilization of storable resources or process- mobility (Fitzhugh and Habu 2002). For ing of foods to increase their shelf life pres- example, Fisher has recently argued that ents another manner in which hunter-gath- search strategies in relation to the different erers may have reduced mobility (Testart attributes of resource distributions should be 1982). The intensive debate over hunter- incorporated into modeling hunter-gatherer gatherer adaptation to novel Holocene envi- behavior during this period of climatic ronments is significant to investigations of

164 Mr. William J. Eichmann. Mesolithic Hunter-Gatherers the much later transition to agriculture, 2001). It is important to note that relative to because it is during this period that we may the totality of Late Paleolithic hunter-gath- begin to recognize general patterns in how, erer activity these sites probably represent when and where Mesolithic hunter-gather- only a small portion of activities aimed at the ers chose to exploit different resources. The exploitation of seasonally available tactics that these hunter-gatherers relied resources. Such sites are archaeologically upon was probably highly variegated. How- more visible as a result of intensive occupa- ever, understanding the underlying general tion and/or repeated returns to the site. patterns of will go a long way toward con- Archaeological evidence for hunter-gather- ceptualizing the various types of interac- ers in the central Carpathian Basin sharply tions, which may have developed several decreases after this period. thousand years later when the first domesti- Between 15,000 and 11,000 uncal. B.P. the cated animals and plants reached the continued retreat of the Alpine and North Carpathian Basin. European glacial ice sheets opened up previ- During the period after the Late Glacial ously uninhabitable territories into which Maximum, 22-20,000 uncal. B.P. (B.P dates hunter-gatherers associated with the Mag- measured from 1950), Europe witnessed ris- dalenian technocomplex expanded from east ing temperatures interrupted by several to west across the north central European shorter, cooler periods (Würm 3, Dryas III). Plain (Kozlowski and Kozlowski 1979: 46- Between 19,000 and 17,000 uncal. B.P. the 51). There is limited evidence from the evidence for human occupation of the cen- Rózsás-Hegy site near Miskolc suggesting tral Carpathian Basin is represented by per- the penetration of certain ele- mutations of the Late Paleolithic ments into during the technocomplex and the Ságvárian culture. Late Pleistocene ( 2004; Ringer Most Gravettian sites are located in north- 1991). A greater influence during the time ern Hungary, a particular dense cluster is was the (Tardigravettian) located in the Danube bend region near the techno-complex occupying the Mediter- confluence of the Danube and Ipoly Rivers, ranean coast from the Spanish Levant to the but significant sites have also been investi- Adriatic coast, and possibly the central gated in Transdanubia and the Jászság . The regional variants of the Epi- region. It has often been the case that such gravettian are poorly understood and proba- sites were identified in buried soils within bly consist of numerous as yet unrecognized eroded loess resulting from modern distur- cultural units (Kozlowski and Kozlowski bances. The sites that have been investigat- 1979: 47). During this time period the cen- ed are generally associated with hunting of tral Carpathian Basin witnessed numerous reindeer, horse, bison, or other large tun- changes in flora and fauna as a result of dra/steppe mammals (see Dobosi 1989, changing climatic conditions. Based on data 2001; Dobosi and Kövecses-Varga 1991; from pollen cores, loess profiles, and mala- Gábori 1956a, 1964; Vörös 1989, 1991, cology, Sümegi et al. (2002) report that 1993). Evidence for structures/shelters and beginning around 15,000 uncal. B.P. por- clear spatial patterning of activity areas has tions of Hungary formerly dominated by been recognized at such sites, among others, steppe vegetation began to yield to closed as Ságvár (Gábori and Gábori 1959) and taiga vegetation (Pinus, Picea, and Larix). Jászfelsôszentgyörgy-Szúnyogos (Dobosi Associated with these vegetation changes

165 Student Conference 2004 were significant changes in fauna: large herd the expansion of deciduous forests (lime, animals of the steppe began to be replaced oak, elm, hazel) throughout most of Hun- by animals found in warmer closed forest gary (Sümegi, Krolopp, et al. 2002). Sümegi environments such as beaver, red deer, roe, et al. (Sümegi, Krolopp, et al. 2002: 19) and deer, wild pig, and aurochs (e.g. see Bökönyi Sümegi et al. (Sümegi, Kertész, et al. 2002) 1972). It is likely that technological elements have emphasized that the differential impact from the Gravettian technocomplex, includ- of climatic patterns (Atlantic in Transdanu- ing the Ságvárian culture, contributed to the bia, Continental on the Alföld, and sub- development of subsequent Epigravettian in Mediterranean in ), the Carpathian Basin. The overall lack of coupled with the effects of soil and geo- evidence has lead some researchers to sug- graphical conditions, produced a mosaic of gest that hunter-gatherers migrated north- vegetation regimes. Mast producing plants wards followed the shift in large steppe herd such as hazelnut were a readily exploitable animals (Simán 1990: 19), leaving the central and storable plant resource and may have Carpathian Basin largely depopulated until had a significant role in the overall diet. the Neolithic (Gábori 1981, 1984; Szath- Although, no plant remains have been máry 1988). The depopulation scenario is recovered from archaeological sites in the not tenable in light of past and recent Carpathian Basin during this period, pollen research, and it is certain that some hunter- corings suggest that by the Late Mesolithic gatherer groups remained. The hunter- hunter-gatherers may have actively been gatherer groups that stayed in the Carpathi- manipulating of forests in order to encour- an Basin, like hunter-gatherers throughout age the growth of hazel. The dominant ter- Europe, undoubtedly altered their food-get- restrial faunal species during this period ting strategies in response to the changing were the beaver, red deer, roe, deer, wild pig, environment. The general lack of archaeo- and aurochs. These animals are generally logical evidence from this time period in more dispersed throughout the landscape Hungary may be partially attributable to the and to a certain extent less predictable in burial of sites by wind-blown loess, although their location. the discovery of sites from earlier periods, If we turn our attention to the archaeo- equally susceptible to burial by loess sug- logical evidence from Hungary during the gests that the problem may be more com- Pleistocene-Holocene transition, the only plex. A second reason for the lack of evi- sites that have significantly investigated are dence from this period is probably also the Szôdliget-Vác (Gábori 1956b, 1968), on the result of insufficient research directed at left bank in the Danube Bend, and Szek- locating such sites. szárd-Palánk (Vértes 1962). Bökönyi’s and After 12,000 uncal. B.P. increasing temper- Berinkey’s analyses of the faunal material ature and precipitation in Hungary acceler- from Szekszárd-Palánk reveals the presence ated the transition from closed taiga to bore- of aurochs, red deer, beaver, and fish (Vértes al forest (Krolopp and Sümegi 1995; Süme- 1962: 197-198). The exploitation of aurochs, gi 1996; Willis, et al. 1997; Willis, et al. red deer, and aquatic resources demonstrates 1995), which was accompanied by a contin- the hunter-gather adaptability to a changing ual increase in proportion of deciduous environment. Additionally, Szôdliget-Vác trees. By 10,000 uncal. B.P. (~10,000 cal. provided evidence for a small (2.4 x 2.2 m) B.C.) further climatic warming had led to rectangular stone lined structure associated

166 Mr. William J. Eichmann. Mesolithic Hunter-Gatherers with external (Gábori 1968: plates 1- example Pamuk among many others, were 2). Both sites have lithic assemblages that are based on collections comprised of gunflints quite similar with end scrapers, backed or completely non-diagnostic lithic blades and segments present. Likewise both (Marton 2003). In numerous cases museum sites seem to exhibit general trends toward collections cannot be associated with specif- microlithization (for general discussion see ic locations and contexts, such as the Gyôr Kozlowski and Kozlowski 1979), a trend collection (Gallus 1942) or the collection which may be indicative of the adoption of from Vöröstó. Two probable Mesolithic har- composite projectile technologies. Based on poons recovered as isolated finds during peat these similarities it may be possible to extend cutting from the Sárrét in Transdanubia the radiocarbon date from Szekszárd-Palánk (Makkay 1970: 14; Marosi 1935, 1936a, b; of 10,350 ± 500 B.P. to Szôdliget-Vác. Nemeskéri 1948) have recently been dated Gábori considered the Szôdliget-Vác site to to the Holocene based on geological stratig- be assignable to the Late Epigravettian or raphy by Sümegi (2003b: 379); although, in Early Mesolithic (Gábori 1956a: 181), while the future these should be subjected to direct Kertész interprets the site as Early Mesolith- radiocarbon dating. In other cases, such as ic. In light of the similar lithic assemblages Mencshely-Murvagödrök (Mészáros 1948), and single radiocarbon date, it is likely that subsequent investigations have revealed that both sites are assignable to the Late Epi- the sites are probably assignable to the gravettian techno-complex; probably Neolithic (Biró 1992). Other sites such as reflecting a transitional period from the Late Kaposhomok, where convincing Mesolithic Epigravettian to the Early Mesolithic: if stone tools had been privately collected in such a period is sharply distinguishable at the 1950`s, have only been marginally inves- this time. The sites of Jászberény-Nevada- tigated by professional archaeologists (Mar- Tanya near the Tarna River (Kertész person- ton 2003; Pusztai 1957). Recent reinvestiga- al communication, Kertész 1996b), as well tions of the Kaposhomok collection indicate as, Kunpeszér-Felsôpeszéri út-Homokbánya that it demonstrates affinities with Western (Horváth 1983b, 1985b, c; Horváth and Technocomplexes (Beuronian, Sauveterri- Tóth 1984a, b) and Kunadacs-Köztemetô an), and that the raw materials used to pro- (Horváth 1983a, 1985a) may be datable to duce the chipped stone tools originated the same period (see Kertész 2002). Perhaps from both sources in the to the the most significant conclusion regarding north and Mountains to the south hunter-gatherers at the Pleistocene- (Marton 2003: 41-42). Like previously men- Holocene boundary is the simple fact that tioned sites, the specific location of the they were present in the Hungary and Kaposhomok site and the geological and demonstrate a general trend toward adapta- archaeological context of the finds remain tion to new environmental conditions. dubious. Until such collections can be clear- Until the early 1990’s the evidence for ly associated with specific sites, with known Mesolithic hunter-gatherers in Hungary was geological and archaeological contexts, their primarily limited to poorly investigated, sur- Mesolithic status will remain uncertain face collections with minimal information A second research impediment can be regarding the context from which the finds attributed to the fact that prior to the 1990’s had originated (Kertész 1991: 29 and 41). there were real questions as to the character- Many sites claimed to be Mesolithic, for istic features of stone tools which could be

167 Student Conference 2004 associated with the Mesolithic. Vértes held from Mesolithic sites in the Carpathian that large bifacial tools were indicative of the Basin and adjacent regions formed the foun- “Rough” or “Danubian” Mesolithic in Hun- dation for predictive hypotheses regarding gary which coexisted with a little known the character of stone tools, which could microlithic Mesolithic (Vértes 1965): a posi- conceivably be associated with the Hungari- tion reinforced by other researchers (e.g. an Mesolithic (Kozlowski 1982a, b, 1989; Rozsnyói 1963). Strong criticism of the Kozlowski and Kozlowski 1979; Kozlowski “Danubian” Mesolithic paradigm were ini- 1975, 1980, 1984, 1985, 2001). The general tially put forth by Kozl/owski in 1973, in scheme used by J. K. Kozl/owski and S. K. which he argued that the association of large Kozl/owski for identifying and labeling lithic bifacial tools with the Mesolithic was unten- industries recognizes broad technocomplexes able in light of the fact that the Mesolithic with shared general attributes and lower was throughout Europe associated with order culture groups or industries of more microlithic technologies (Kozlowski 1973). localizable distribution. There are basically Nevertheless, in a catalog of Paleolithic and two technocomplexes, most recently dis- Mesolithic sites in Hungary, Dobosi almost cussed by S. K. Kozl/owski (2001), relevant to exclusively discusses the “Rough” Mesolith- the Carpathian Basin Mesolithic: the West- ic (Dobosi 1975). It was not until the late ern Technocomplex and the Late Epigravet- 1980’s that the “Danubian” Mesolithic con- tian (also referred to as Tardigravettian) [see cept was put to rest when the artifacts were Maps in Kozl/owski and Kozl/owski 1979]. solidly reassigned to Middle and Late Pale- During the Early Mesolithic, roughly 10- olithic industries (Kordos and Ringer 1991; 8,000 uncal. B.P., the Western Technocom- Ringer 1982, 1983, 1990, 2000, 2001; plex is best known from sites associated with Ringer and Adams 2000; Ringer, et al. 1995; the Beuronian-Coincy north of the Simán 1978, 1979, 1984, 1986, 1991; Simán Alps and the Sauveterrian industry located and Csorba 1993; Svoboda and Simán 1989). south of the Alps and along the Mediter- Hungary effectively remained terra incognita ranean. Both industries are defined by gen- in terms of the Mesolithic until surveys and eral associations between lithic tool types excavations conducted by Róbert Kertész in and specific types of geometric microliths. the Jászság region of north Trapeze microliths are present in the later during the late 1980’s and 1990’s. An often variants of both the Sauveterrian and Beu- underestimated effect of the pre-1990 situa- ronian. During the Late Mesolithic Castel- tion was a complete lack of popularizing novian industry, the successor to the Sauvet- publications produced for the general public errian, trapezes become more widely dis- presenting the types of archaeological mate- persed and spread from the south to north. rials associatable with the Mesolithic: The The Epigravettian technocomplex, as treat- serendipitous discovery of Mesolithic sites ed by S. K. Kozl/owski (2001), is allegedly was unlikely to occur in such an environ- distributed throughout the Balkans and cen- ment. tral Carpathian Basin, including Transdanu- Before discussing the Mesolithic sites from bia and the Alföld. the Jászság region, it will be beneficial to The Late Epigravettian, equivalent to the review the broader character of evidence Early Mesolithic, lasted from 10,000 uncal. from the Carpathian Basin. J. K. Kozl/owski’s B.P. to roughly 8,000 uncal. B.P., while the and S. K. Kozl/owski’s syntheses of evidence Latest Epigravettian, equivalent to the Late

168 Mr. William J. Eichmann. Mesolithic Hunter-Gatherers

Mesolithic, lasted from 8,000 uncal. B.P. to known Mesolithic sites or site concentra- 7,000 uncal. B.P (Kozlowski 2001). The tions significant to understanding similar quality of the evidence with which they have sites in Hungary [see Map Kertész 2002: used to generate the Epigravettian is highly 282-283]. variable, and dependent upon both the O¤ In the portion of within the research traditions of different countries and Carpathian Basin there are three known the geomorphological conditions affecting Mesolithic sites: 1) Ciumes¸ti II – located site detection. Epigravettian is used to near the Romanian-Hungarian boarder describe this industry in order to emphasize (Paunescu 1964, 1970); 2) Cremenea – continuity with the precedent Gravettian located in Transylvania (Nicolaescu-Plop- industry. To a large extent the perception of sor and Pop 1959); and 3) Glîma – located technological homogeneity is rooted in S. K. in Transylvania. Kozl/owski’s perception that Pleistocene- O¤ A concentration of exceptionally rich Holocene environmental change was less Mesolithic sites has been excavated on both extreme in southeastern Europe, a point the Romanian and Serbian banks of the contradicted by both Sümegi et al. (2002) Danube in region (Radovanovic and Kertész (2002). S. K. Kozl/owski’s con- 1996). siders that due to lack of evidence there is O¤ Two Mesolithic sites are known from probably little internal cohesion to the Epi- northern : Peres, near Hajdukovo, gravettian technocomplex and future and Bac˘ka Palanka, on the left bank of the research may lead to its redefinition Danube (Brukner 1966). (Kozlowski 2001: 268-269). The identifica- O¤ There are no known Mesolithic sites tion of technocomplexes and the subsidiary from the Slavonian portion of or culture groups has progressed almost exclu- from eastern Slovenia. sively along the lines of typological classifi- O¤Leitner (1984) has provided a summary of cation with little emphasis on the various eighteen Mesolithic sites from Austria, aspects of Mesolithic hunter-gatherer some of which have never been published, behavior and site function, which undoubt- which have been assigned, primarily based edly played a significant role in structuring on the presence of geometric microliths, the character of each lithic assemblage. It is with varying degrees of certainty to the entirely possible that some of the more Mesolithic. He notes that Austrian poorly reported sites may represent a research into the Mesolithic has confront- palimpsest of activities from different time ed similar problems as research in Hun- periods, or that particular tool types may be gary: sites lacking stratigraphical context, differentially present at sites geared toward often mixed with assemblages from later different activities. cultures, and chronological relations only Few sites in the Carpathian Basin have possible through general typological com- been successfully radiocarbon dated, and the parison with better known sites from sur- assignment of late or early Mesolithic is pri- rounding regions (Germany, Switzerland, marily based on the previously discussed and Italy). Nevertheless the more eastern lithic typologies, which are significantly Mesolithic sites in Austria are worthy of more robust in regards to the Western Tech- mention as potential analogs for Mesolith- nocomplexes (Beuronian, Sauveterrian, ic sites in Hungarian Transdanubia. In Castelnovian). The following is a list of

169 Student Conference 2004

South East Austria the sites of Tropf- drainages of the Prut and Dniester Rivers steinhöhle des Schloßberges bei Griffen (Matskevoî 1987, 1991). The dispropor- located along the /Mura River in tionate number of Mesolithic sites located Kärnten and Zigeunerhöhle im Hausberg in the Ukraine, relative to surrounding von Gratkorn near the Drau/ river in countries, is almost certainly the direct Steiermark. A cluster of five open air sites product of more intensive research efforts. is located between the Danube and Czech O¤The site of Odmut cave (Kozlowski, et al. boarder in Niederösterreich: Mühlfeld bei 1994) in Montenegro is one of the only Horn, Horn-Galgenberg (Gulder 1953; stratified cave deposits containing a strati- Weiser 1980), Kamegg im Kamptal (Berg fied Mesolithic sequence in the Balkans. and Gulder 1956), Burgschleinitz bei Eggenburg (Gulder 1953; Leitner 1980), Beginning in the late 1980’s and 1990’s and an outlier site located near Vienna, Kertész, in collaboration with local collector Bisamberg bei Wein (Gulder 1953; Kmoch Gy. Kerékgyártó, began to sytematically 1966). Five unpublished and undated pos- survey the Jászság region of the northern sible open air Mesolithic sites are also Hungarian Alföld along the Tarna and known from Eastern Austria in Burgen- Zagyva Rivers (Kertész 1991). In the course land: Neusiedl am See, Jois, Breitenbrunn, of this work numerous sites with Föllik bei Großhöflein, and Pöttelsdorf. characteristic Mesolithic geometric From amongst all these sites, the Early microliths were identified along abandoned Mesolithic sites of Kamegg and Limberg- channels and oxbows of the of the Early Mühlberg, as well as, the Late Mesolithic Holocene (Boreal Period) Tarna and Zagyva site of Bisamberg stand out. Rivers (Kertész 1996b: 13). In many cases O¤A group of five Mesolithic sites is known these sites lacked pottery or the pottery from southeastern Czech Republic: Smolín present originated from a period in which (Valoch 1963, 1978, 1985), Pr˘ibice (Valoch chipped stone tools were not utilized. 1975), Dolní Ve˘stonice (Klíma 1953), Further survey work and subsequent S˘akvice (Klíma 1953), and Mikulc˘ice (Klí- excavations lead to the further investigation ma 1970). and publications of the sites of Jászberény I O¤In western Slovakia, Bárta has investigat- (Kertész 1991, 1996b), Jászberény II ed the Early Mesolithic sites of Mostová (Kertész 1993), Jászberény IV (Kertész (Bárta 1960) and Tomásikovo (Bárta 1955), 1995, 1996c), and Jásztelek I (Kertész 1994, as well as, the Late Mesolithic sites of 1996b). The area of surface lithic scatters Sered I (Bárta 1957) and Dolná Streda vary from 12-17 m to 40-50 m in diameter, (Bárta 1965). These sites are restricted to a and the rarer, larger sites may be comprised rather small region west of the lower Vág of multiple smaller concentrations (Kertész River. Evidence for Mesolithic occupants 1996b: 19; 2002: 288). Kertész goes on to in eastern Slovakia is limited to the proba- report that difference in site size may reflect ble Early Mesolithic site of Barca I (Bárta differences in the duration of stay, and that 1980a, b; Pros˘ek 1959) and Ruz˘ín-Medve- at the larger sites it is possible to recognize dia Cave (Bárta 1985, 1990). different activity areas. Significantly, a O¤ Numerous Mesolithic sites are known circular dwelling structure (diameter = 5 m) from both the portion of the Ukraine lying with a subterranean floor and centrally within the Carpathian Basin and the located was excavated at the Jásztelek

170 Mr. William J. Eichmann. Mesolithic Hunter-Gatherers site: post holes indicate that the was cantly incorporates elements of the Western constructed from large leaning poles (teepee Technocomplex (Beuronian, Sauveterrian), form) to which roofing material (i.e. reeds) but does not demonstrate links with the was probably affixed (Kertész 1996b:19-22). Balkan Epigravettian/Tardigravettian As suggested by the location of sites on river (Kertész 1996b: 23-25). He goes on to state floodplains, faunal remains from aquatic that the strongest analogies for the NHPM animals are present, but in addition faunal are the Western Technocomplex influenced remains from terrestrial animals attest to the Mesolithic sites, including the Tisza Valley exploitation of species located both in Mesolithic Group (Barca I, Ciumes¸ti II) (for riparian corridors and interfluvial steppe definition see Bárta 1972, 1973, 1980a, b), environs (Kertész 2002: 289). As of yet no the northern Carpathian Basin perimeter plant remains have been recovered from the (Kamegg, Limberg-Mühlberg, Mostová, Jászság sites, but this is probably the result of Tamás˘ikovo, Smolín, Pr˘ibice, Dolní Ve˘ston- poor preservation conditions, as recent ice, Mikulc˘ice, Bisamberg bei Wien, and analyses of pollen cores suggest that hunter- Sered I). The results of this work suggest gatherers may have been intentionally that the cultural landscape of the Early manipulating the woodlands to increase Holocene Carpathian Basin was significant- hazelnut production (Sümegi 2004). All the ly more diverse than initially suspected. Jászság Mesolithic sites are dominated by Sites created by mobile hunter-gatherers lithic raw materials locally attainable from are often archaeologically less visible than the Mountains located 20-30 km to those created by farmers living in villages. the north; suggesting seasonal movement Archaeological visibility is an invalid proxy between highland and lowland for evaluating the contributions of the environments. respective groups to the second phase of On the basis of lithic materials recovered in Neolithic expansion. Increasing evidence the course of surface collections at has accrued which convincingly indicates Jászberény II and IV, as well as, excavations that hunter-gatherer populations were pres- at Jásztelek I and Jászberény I, Kertész ent in the Carpathian basin and probably (Kertész 1996a; 1996b) divided the Jászság interacted with the first farmers. Sustained Mesolithic into two phases: 1) the Early research efforts in the Jászság region have Mesolithic, Boreal, Jászberény I phase based proven that Mesolithic sites exist, but as yet on stratigraphic observations during the undiscovered sites in western Hungary are course of excavations; and 2) the Late still awaiting similar treatment. The Jászság Mesolithic, Early Atlantic, Jásztelek I phase region stands in stark contrast to Transdanu- known from surface collections at the bian Hungary; an important staging ground respective site. In contrast to J. K. Kozl/ows- for the spread of agricultural communities to ki and S. K. Kozl/owski (Kozlowski and the rest of North Central Europe. Trans- Kozlowski 1979), Kertész argues that the danubia’s role, as the secondary node for the Jászság Mesolithic lithic industry, or North prehistoric transmission of agriculture to Hungarian Plain Mesolithic Group North Central Europe, demands that (NHPM), shows links with the preceding increased effort be devoted to the scrutiny of Late Pleistocene Epigravettian and signifi- possible Mesolithic evidence.

171 Student Conference 2004

The Spread of Agriculture: South These plants were later complemented by West Asia to South East Europe the following domestic animal species: The agricultural center of origin most sig- sheep, goat, cattle, and pig. Dogs were also nificant to the European Neolithic is the present, but were domesticated much earlier, “” located in South West and hence were already distributed through- Asia; an area encompassing the Levantine out both Europe and South West Asia. corridor (Israel, Palestine, Jordan, and Syria) Agriculture was almost certainly transmit- and southern foothills of the Taurus Moun- ted to Greece from the Anatolian Peninsula; tains (Syria and Turkey) and Zagros Moun- although the specific route, or routes, out of tains (Iraq and Iran). This region was initial- western Turkey is the topic of current ly singled out as a region in which early agri- debates (Özdogan 1989, 2000; Schubert culture may have developed based upon the 1999; Thissen 2000a, b). Based on her eval- regional distribution of the wild progenitors uation of radiocarbon dates from Early of early domestic animals and plants (Harris Neolithic sites in Greece, Perlès (2001: 98- 1990; Vavilov 1926). Human actions ulti- 110) suggests that the Early Neolithic began mately leading to the many of on the southern Greek mainland around plant species are likely to have begun some 6,500 cal. B.C. and lasted until about 5,900 time during the late Pleistocene (pre-10,000 cal. B.C. The debate over the existence of an cal. B.C.). The ability to track the first steps earlier Greek Pre-Pottery Neolithic phase in the process of domestication is hampered aside, Early Neolithic societies in Greece by the fact that morphological change in the utilized both pottery and the major elements animals themselves, and other materially of the suite of domestic plants and animals salient aspects of human-animal relations, (Perlès 2001). The Greek Early Neolithic are both preceded by a period of unknown subsistence economy, as described by Perlès duration. It appears that groups inhabiting (2001: 152-172), displays some of the gener- different regions with in the Fertile Crescent al patterns that are manifest throughout the and Taurus Mountains in were Balkan Early Neolithic societies. Emmer responsible for domesticating different ani- and einkorn wheat tend to be the most com- mal and plant species during the early mon domestic plants recovered from sites, Holocene between 10,000 and 7,000 cal. although this type of information is heavily B.C. These species were later melded into dependent upon the types of recovery tech- the classic “Neolithic Package” during the niques used. The bones of sheep and goat, later Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period animals adapted to more arid conditions, are (PPNB) and early Pottery Neolithic (PN) almost always numerically dominant, but sometime during the late 8th and early 7th cattle probably provided more meat. Certain millennium B.C. (Bar-Yosef and Meadow aspects of the material culture tend to be 1995). This “Neolithic Package” included widely shared such as the basic ceramic the following domesticated plants: emmer forms, figurines and idols, as well as the chaff wheat (Triticum dicoccum), einkorn wheat tempered fabric used in their production. (Triticum monoccoccum), bread wheat Between the late 7th millennium and early (Triticum aestivum), six-row barley (Hordeum 6th millennium cal. B.C. an approximately vulgare), lentils (Lens culinaris), peas (Pisum 500,000km2 portion of southeastern Europe sativum), and bitter vetch (Vicia ervilia). were settled by the first agricultural soci-

172 Mr. William J. Eichmann. Mesolithic Hunter-Gatherers eties. Radiocarbon dates from a number of research, and I will briefly summarize some Early Neolithic sites (Whittle, et al. 2002) its more salient, and generally agreed upon, indicate that agricultural societies spread aspects before discussing the Starcˇevo cul- rapidly northward through the Balkans, ture, which is often presented in juxtaposi- probably following a number of different tion to the Körös culture. However, Kalicz routes, and reached the Carpathian Basin by notes that the integration of the full range of the early 6th millennium cal. B.C. (Hertelen- archaeological evidence, not only ceramics, di, et al. 1995; Hertelendi, et al. 1998; indicates a greater degree of variability with- Horváth and Hertelendi 1994; Whittle, et in the Starcˇevo culture than between the al. 2002). Within the Carpathian Basin the Starcˇevo and Körös cultures (Kalicz 1988: following three culture groups have been 88), and it is important to keep this hetero- distinguished: Starc˘evo (Hungarian Trans- geneity in mind. The currently accepted dis- danubia, eastern Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegov- tribution of Starcˇevo culture sites includes ina, and Serbia), Körös (Hungarian Alföld Serbia, Western Bosnia-Herzegovina, east- and northern Serbia) Cris¸ (Transylvania in ern Croatia (Slavonia), and southwestern Romania). Hungary (Transdanubia). Research in the early 20th century failed to Early Neolithic in the Carpathian associate the Körös culture with the Balkan Basin: Starcˇevo-Körös-Cris¸ Early Neolithic. It was only through the Cultures efforts of Kutzián (1944; 1947) that the The Balkan Early Neolithic as manifest in Körös culture was correctly assigned to the the Carpathian Basin has been separated Balkan Early Neolithic. Kutzian recognized into three regional groups: Starcˇevo, Körös, a strong similarity in the artifacts recovered and Cris¸ [see Map Kalicz et al. 1998: 153]. from Körös culture sites on the southern Each is endowed with its own peculiarities Alföld of East Hungary and Early Neolithic but the three groups are also often referred sites in Greece (Kutzián 1944, 1947). Since to in hyphenated form (Starcˇevo-Körös- then it has been recognized that Körös sites Cris¸), reflecting their underlying relatedness are also distributed in the Danube-Tisza with in the broader Balkan Early Neolithic interfluvial region (Bognár-Kutzián 1977). sphere. From the start it is important to From the outset it must be stated that many emphasize that boundaries between these Körös sites have been excavated since the groups are generally not sharp, and they are 1950’s, but few of these excavations were best envisioned as fuzzy boundaries. The large scale and even fewer have been fully Cris¸ culture is distributed parts of Walachia published, rendering much of the available and Transylvania in Romania (Lazarovici information impressionistic in character. 1969, 1979) and probably also extreme Despite these deficiencies it is possible to northeastern Hungary, as evidenced at the make some general statements regarding the Méhtelek-Nádas site. I will not discuss the overall settlement patterns, internal settle- Cris¸ culture in this paper. The Körös culture ment structure, subsistence economy, and is distributed throughout the southern ceramics. Alföld in Hungary, the in Romania, Körös sites are found at densities far sur- and the extreme northern portion of Serbia passing that documented for either Cris¸ or (Vojvodina). The Körös culture has been Starcˇevo. In his summary of archaeological and continues to be the topic of intensive surveys (MTA IV 1-Szeghalom and MTA IV

173 Student Conference 2004

2- Szarvas) conducted in the central area of defined in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s Körös distribution Makkay (1982: 114) [see Map sequence: Dimitrijevic´ 1969: 41; reported that 304 sites were recorded in a Kalicz and Makkay 1972: 82; Kozl/owski and 2012km2 area, for an astounding average Kozl/owski 1979: 69; Kalicz 1990: 116; Virág density of 6.61 sites/km2. The most charac- and Kalicz 2001: 266]. The earliest synthesis teristic Körös culture sites are linear sites, up of the Starcˇevo culture in monograph form to 1 km in length, with dense surface scatters was presented by Arandjelovic´ and D. of ceramic and burnt daub, stretched out on Garasˇanin (1954). The steps that would lead slightly elevated levees along active and to the recognition of Starcˇevo sites in west- abandoned river courses (Kalicz and Makkay ern Hungary were initiated in the 1960’s 1977; Kosse 1979; Sherratt 1997a, b; Whit- when Yugoslavian archaeologists began to tle 1996). This view of Körös settlements identify Starcˇevo sites located further to the located in a relatively homogeneous envi- north and west than had previously been ronment structured primarily by the loca- known (Dimitrijevic 1966, 1969, 1971, tion of waterways has been recently chal- 1978, 1979). These new Starcˇevo sites were lenged in a paper by Sümegi (2003a) in located throughout Slavonia (northeastern which he argues for significantly more het- and central Croatia between Drava and Sava erogeneous soil and vegetation conditions. Rivers) with the northern boundary estab- He argues for two types of Körös sites dis- lished along the Drava River (Dimitrijevic tinguishable on the basis of their environ- 1969: 41). The northern boundary along the mental associations: 1) sites “…situated on Drava did not remain reality for long. Holocene alluvia, right at the active Through investigation of museum collec- riverbeds.”, and 2) sites “…‘normally’ found tions, survey work, and excavations in the on the natural levees that developed toward 1970’s Kalicz and Makkay were able to the end of the Pleistocene and are covered establish that the Starcˇevo culture was also with infusion and sometimes aeoleian loess present north of the Drava River in south- constituting the morphologically highest western Hungary. At first they recognized points of the plain depression areas, and as a Starcˇevo elements, which they initially consequence, free of the influences of termed the “Medina type”, from museum floods” (Sümegi 2003a: 53, 56). Sümegi fur- collections originating from the sites of ther suggests that these different environ- Medina and -Nyanyapuszta, both mental associations were probably associat- located in (Kalicz and Makkay ed with fundamentally different subsistence 1972a, b, 1975a). Subsequent excavations at economies; with the first, less well investi- Lánycsók in County (Ecsedy 1978; gated, site type associated with the exploita- Kalicz 1978, 1980, 1983) and Becsehely in tion of wild terrestrial and aquatic resources County (Kalicz 1980, 1983) provided and the second site type focused on produc- unequivocal contextual evidence for the tion of domestic plant cultivation and animal Starcˇevo culture in Trandanubia. Kalicz husbandry. notes that these excavations were significant The recognition of Balkan Early Neolithic not only in the materials recovered, but also Starcˇevo sites in western Hungary coeval due to their spatial separation, which sug- with Körös culture sites occurred signifi- gested that Starcˇevo sites could be found cantly later and the full distributional extent throughout southern Transdanubia. of the Starcˇevo culture only became well From the 1970’s onward there has been a

174 Mr. William J. Eichmann. Mesolithic Hunter-Gatherers steady increase in the number of Starcˇevo and to a certain degree the Starcˇevo sites in sites recognized in both southwestern Hun- Slavonia. The significant geographic differ- gary and Slavonia. In her 1992 monograph ences, especially in terms of relief, between on the Starcˇevo culture of Slavonia, Transdanubia and the Alföld preclude a Minichreiter catalogs a total of nineteen direct comparison between Körös and investigated Starcˇevo sites throughout Slavo- Starcˇevo site location; although, as Kalicz et nia; although more are known to exist al. remark, “…the living water environment (Minichreiter 1992). In 1988 Kalicz reports was as important here [Transdanubia] as on ten known Starcˇevo sites from western Hun- the Alföld” (Kalicz, et al. 1998: 152). It may gary (Kalicz 1988, 1990), by 1993 fifteen cer- prove more insightful to direct our attention tain and two questionable Starcˇevo sites were toward comparisons which can be drawn known (Kalicz 1993), and subsequently one between the geographically similar regions additional site has been added (Virág and in Hungary and Slavonia. Kalicz 2001). The presently recognized There are few apparent differences northern extent of the Starcˇevo culture has between the location of Slavonian and Hun- been established south of a line running from garian Starcˇevo sites. Minichreiter notes that Szekszárd, on the Danube, northwest along Slavonian Starcˇevo sites are generally locat- the Kapos and Koppány Rivers to the south- ed on “…elevated terraces along major ern shore of , proceeding north rivers, - on low sunny hills which descend to encompass the Gellénháza site before towards valleys with watercourses, [and] – turning south. Undoubtedly many new gently elevated terrain in plains along small Starcˇevo sites are awaiting discovery in streams” (Minichreiter 1992: 70). The geo- Transdanubia. For example, the sites and graphical location of Starcˇevo sites in Hun- ceramics presented in the erroneously identi- gary is comparable to those in Slavonia; fied Neolithic “ Group” (Törôcsik specifically, the Hungarian sites are associat- 1991) contain many Starcˇevo artifacts from ed with terraces along the Danube River, sites in the vicinity of the Koppány and Drava River, and Lake Balaton and related Kapos Rivers, which have been incorrectly wetland areas, as well as, smaller rivers and associated with the early Transdanubian streams draining into these three larger bod- LBK (Bánffy personal communication). ies of water (Kalicz 1988). Waterways almost There are also hints of Starcˇevo sites on the certainly provided both rich resource envi- northern shore of Lake Balaton (Bánffy per- ronments, as well as, easy routes for move- sonal communication). Even with the addi- ment for people exchanging raw materials tion of these new sites it is likely that the set- and information. tlement density will remain an order of mag- In contrast with site location is possible to nitude less than the Körös culture, a situation recognize changes in settlement density, site mentioned by Kalicz (1988; 1990; 1993: 87). size, and settlement intensity northwards An examination of Hungarian Starcˇevo site from Slavonian into Hungarian Transdanu- location, settlement density, site size, and bia (Kalicz 1988, 1990). There are more occupation intensity reveals that their settle- Starcˇevo sites known from Slavonia, and ment density appears to be lower, the sites especially south central Slavonia (Kalicz, et tend to be smaller and less intensely occup- al. 1998: 153 - Fig. 2 ). Three large Starcˇevo pied than the more densely distributed sites have been investigated in Slavonia Körös sites to the east (Kalicz 1988, 1990) (Pepelane, Vinkovci, and Zadubravlje), some

175 Student Conference 2004 quite near to the Drava River (Pepelane) 2002: 19-20). Horváth (1989: 85-86) has (Minichreiter 1992: 11-36, 64-70), but most provided a synthesis of dwelling structures Slavonian sites are smaller than 1 ha. No recovered from a number of Körös culture large sites are known from Hungary and all sites – Kotacpart-Vata Tanya (Banner 1943), sites are smaller than 1 ha (Kalicz 1988, Nosza-Gyöngypart (Brukner 1974; 1990; 1993: 87). Kalicz questioned whether Garasˇanin 1959), Ludasˇ-Budzˇak (Szekeres the apparent difference in Starcˇevo settle- 1967), Tiszajenô (Selmeczi 1969), Szajol- ment density and size, relative to Körös cul- Felsôföld (Raczky 1982) , Szolnok-Szanda ture sites, resulted from an overall smaller (Kalicz and Raczky 1981; Raczky 1982) and population or from a shorter duration of a house model from Röszke-Ludvár (Trog- presence in the region (Kalicz 1988, 1990). mayer 1966) – and he concludes that “…the The intensity of occupation at individual characteristic Early Neolithic house type of sites is related to both the nature of on-site the Tisza region was a single-room rectan- activities and the effects of settlement mobil- gular structure with gable roof and wattle ity (Whittle 2001). Whittle argues that more and daub or reed walls.” [see reconstruction attention should be paid to the potential in Lenneis 2000: 388] Indirect evidence for mobility of Early Neolithic (Körös) and houses, perhaps similar to those observed at Middle Neolithic (LBK) societies. He sug- Körös culture sites, has been recovered in gests six types of mobility within a broader the form of burnt daube and pit arrange- settlement mobility spectrum: 1) residential ments from both Gellénháza-Városrét or circulating mobility, 2) embedded or teth- (Simon 1996) and Vörs-Máriaasszony-sziget ered mobility, 3) logistical or radiating (Kalicz, et al. 2002: 19-20). Kalicz notes that mobility, 4) short-term sedentism, 5) short- the layout of pits suggests that surface struc- term sedentism with embedded and/or logis- tures may have been present at Vörs. tical, and 6) embedded sedentism (Whittle An entirely alternative interpretation of 2001: 450-451). In regards to the Lánycsók Starcˇevo structures, dominant in the inter- site Kalicz remarks that far fewer ceramic pretation of Croatian sites, considers that sherds were recovered than would be expect- the numerous excavated pits are the remains ed from a similar sized Körös excavation of subsurface houses (Minichreiter 1992: 70) (Kalicz 1978: 143). There is currently no evi- [see reconstruction in Minichreiter 1992: dence refuting the interpretation of Hungar- 30]. The association of northern Starcˇevo ian Starcˇevo sites as locations where a limit- sites with pit house may be ed range of special activities were repeatedly amenable to theories attempting to stress executed for short periods or time. Mesolithic roots, but there are neither paral- The internal structure of Starcˇevo sites in lels for such architecture in the Mesolithic of western Hungary is poorly understood. The Transdanubia (largely due to absence of evi- sites are generally characterized by a series dence), nor in the Early Transdanubian LBK of variously sized (1-6 m dia.), round or with the exception of an enigmatic pit amorphously shaped pits, and occasionally dwelling identified at the Bicske I site, locat- associated with small kilns (e.g. Vörs-Mári- ed west of Budapest (Makkay 1978). aasszony-sziget). To date, no structure has The situation regarding Starcˇevo houses been excavated at a Starcˇevo site in Hungary may be similar to the state of research that could plausibly have functioned as a regarding Alföld LBK (AVK) houses in east- dwelling structure (Kalicz 1988; Kalicz, et al. ern Hungary in the early 1990’s. Up to this

176 Mr. William J. Eichmann. Mesolithic Hunter-Gatherers time, for lack of any better evidence, refer- found at Vörs-Máriaasszony-sziget (Kalicz, ences were made Alföld LBK pit houses et al. 2002). Kalicz et al. (2002: 16) report (Kurucz 1989: 20-25). The Alföld LBK pit that initial excavations by Aradi in 1990 house theory was rendered less plausible resulted in the exposure of a burial in con- after extensive excavations by Dombóroczki tracted position with no . Fur- (1997; 2001; 2003), at the site of ther details of this burial have not been pub- Füzesabony-Gubakút, revealed Early Alföld lished, but a radiocarbon date from the bur- LBK long houses similar to those known ial falls between 5,550 and 5,200 cal. B.C. throughout the LBK North Central Euro- (Kalicz, et al. 2002). The second burial, a pean distribution. At this site large pits young female, from Vörs was associated found parallel to the long houses were rein- with clam shells, a pottery vessel, and a terpreted as possible clay extraction pits grinding stone. Two burials, a child and incidental to house construction. In Trans- female, were excavated at the Lánycsók site danubia similar long houses, with parallel (Zoffmann 1978). The Hungarian Starcˇevo pits, are known in the Early Transdanubian burials appear to fall within the context of LBK from the site of Balatonszárszó (Oross general Starcˇevo burial practices (Lekovic and Marton personal communication). With 1985, 1995), which are characterized by a regard to the Starcˇevo culture, an interesting diversity of non standardized customs with case in point may be the Croatian site of few to no grave goods. It is not possible to Zadubravlje, where post molds are inter- discern any clear differences in social status preted as pilings for elevated food storage based on burial patterns. Analysis of skeletal units, while larger pits, some containing materials suggests a fairly heterogeneous kilns are interpreted as dwellings (Minichre- population probably reflecting both non- iter 1992: 29-36, 69-70). The interpretation local and indigenous elements (Zoffmann of the post molds as remnants of some type 1999, 2001). of surface structure would be more in line Our understanding of Starcˇevo subsistence with the type of architecture seen in the Ear- practices from Hungarian sites is minimal. ly Middle Neolithic. It is probably only a Systematic flotation was not enlisted, or matter of time before excavations in Hun- results have not been reported, and the only gary or Croatia produce a more convincing evidence regarding domestic plant usage evidence for Starcˇevo dwellings. Alternative- comes from cereal impressions resulting ly, it may come to pass that a diversity of from chaff tempering of ceramics at Lányc- non-standardized domestic architecture may sók (Kalicz 1990: 125), and other sites, and typify the northern manifestation of the carbonized grains in a possible Starcˇevo alter Starcˇevo culture. It remains impossible to fragment recovered as a stray surface find speculate on the internal social organization from the site of Kéthely (Füzes 1990: 161- of Starcˇevo site inhabitants as reflected in 162). The lack of information makes it domestic architecture. Given complete impossible to make any definitive statements absence of information on Mesolithic struc- regarding the specific pattern of domesticat- tures it is also impossible to gauge the likeli- ed plant management or utilization. Howev- hood of the survival of such traditions with- er, as Kalicz (1988: 114-115) notes, it would in the Starcˇevo group. not be unusual to find similar early cultigens Four human burials have been excavated at to those found on other Early Balkan Starcˇevo sites in Hungary. Two burials were Neolithic sites; domesticated plants such as:

177 Student Conference 2004 emmer wheat (Triticum dicoccum), einkorn better documented Körös culture faunal wheat (Triticum monoccoccum), bread wheat material: The numerical dominance of (Triticum aestivum), six-row barley (Hordeum sheep and goat bones at Early Neolithic vulgare), lentils (Lens culinaris), and peas Körös sites in the Carpathian Basin has lead (Pisum sativum). Bökönyi (1974; 1989) to point to a Greek The evidence for domestic animal hus- and ultimately South West Asian origin for bandry is only slightly more robust than the the entire agricultural package. He further previously presented evidence for domestic suggests that this evidence supports the plants. Lánycsók is the only Hungarian site spread of agriculture through migration of from which the faunal assemblage (total agricultural populations. The antithesis of NISP = 1067, total MNI = 118) has been Bökönyi’s position has been recently postu- analyzed and reported (Kalicz 1988: kép 2; lated by Chapman (2003). Chapman 1990:164). The full suite of domestic ani- attempts to identify the Mesolithic substra- mals is present (% total NISP = 95.5, % tum, or in his terms “habitus,” in the Körös total MNI = 86.44): cattle, sheep-goat, pig, culture by comparing faunal assemblages and dog. The following wild animals are from Körös sites with Greek Early Neolith- present (% total NISP = 4.5, % total MNI = ic sites and the Jászság Mesolithic sites. 13.56): aurochs, red deer, roe deer, and wild Chapman considers the high percentage of boar. The typical pattern observed at other wild species (12-40% total NISP; 25-62% Balkan Early Neolithic sites is repeated at total MNI) in three Körös site assemblages Lánycsók: 1) significantly greater propor- of significant size, “…to surely betoken a tion of bones from domestic animals relative range of skills, ecological and ethological to wild animals; 2) sheep-goat NISP (Num- knowledge and dietary preferences Körös ber of Identifiable Specimens) is greater hunters and fishers derived from local spe- than any other domestic animal, with cattle cialists;…” (2003: 96). Chapman views the second and pig a distant third; and 3) cattle utilization of wild animals as some type of contributes more consumable meat by gauge of Mesolithic-ness. Ultimately, this is weight calculated from MNI (Minimum based on the assumption that Early Neolith- Number of Individuals). On the other hand, ic groups were somehow incapable of adapt- Kalicz points out that the contribution of ing to new situations without the help of wild animal meat, and especially aurochs, to Mesolithic “super hunters.” It is equally the overall diet at Lánycsók was 62.68 % by insightful to consider the significance of uti- weight. Based on this extremely limited lization of wild species by Early Neolithic information it is possible to state that either cultures in a broader temporal context, as Starcˇevo immigrants brought with them, or opposed to the purely spatial context enlist- the Mesolithic hunter-gatherers were able to ed by Chapman. Kalicz et al. (1998: 152), gain access to the entire suite of domesticat- draw attention to Bökönyi’s (Bökönyi 1992: ed animals. Future research should aim to 197-201, 233-239) observations that improve the quality and quantity of informa- exploitation of wild animals was greater in tion available on Starcˇevo subsistence prac- the Late Neolithic than the Early Neolithic, tices in Hungary: Without this information and Kalicz et al. propose that the utilization it will be extremely difficult, if not impossi- of wild animals by Körös groups was noth- ble, to examine the process of neolithization. ing more than taking advantage of a rich If we turn our attention briefly toward the environment. It is difficult to come down in

178 Mr. William J. Eichmann. Mesolithic Hunter-Gatherers favor of either interpretation; however, it is (Kalicz, et al. 1998: 164-168, 178-181) pres- fairly clear that utilization of wild resources ents a fairly similar picture to that of Gellén- provides no clear evidence for Mesolithic háza-Városrét site. Like the Gellénháza- ancestry. Városrét assemblage, Vörs-Máriaasszony- The analyses of the lithic raw materials and sziget is dominated by raw materials from chipped stone tools at Hungarian Starcˇevo the Bakony Mountains with primarily flakes sites provides information about both the and chips with blades present in lower num- types of long distance relationships of the bers. The high proportion of retouched inhabitants with sources regions and the tools and overall low number of cores, as a nature of on-site activities. Starcˇevo sites in proportion of the overall assemblage, sug- Hungary from which the lithic assemblages gest that the inhabitants either processed the have been analyzed and published are Gel- materials off-site, or acquired the materials lénháza-Városrét (Biró 2002: 135-141; Biró in processed form through trade. In this and Simon 2003) and Vörs-Máriaassszony- sense the Vörs-Máriaasszony-sziget differs sziget (Kalicz, et al. 1998: 164-168, 178- from the Gellénháza-Városrét site where a 181). The lithic assemblage from the sites more direct connection with the same raw Becsehely I exists but is unpublished accord- material sources is implicated. The tool kit is ing to Biró (2002: 134-135). There is no described as “fairly varied” and the following information available from Lánycsók or any items are mentioned amongst the inventory of the other Starcˇevo sites. The site of Gel- of retouched tools: end scrapers, segments, lénháza-Városrét had multiple chronologi- burins, but no “classical trapezes.” There is cal horizons with a total lithic assemblage of no mention of the microburin technique, 1414 pieces, and Biró and Simon (2003) note recognized at Mesolithic sites in north cen- that roughly half of the total assemblage can tral Hungary (Kertész 1996b, 2001, 2002), be securely assigned to the Starcˇevo culture. at either Gellénháza-Városrét or Vörs- In their analysis of the Gellénháza-Városrét Máriaasszony-sziget; although, the presence they reached the following conclusions (Biró of (micro)burins may be suggestive of this and Simon 2003: 122-125): 1) microlithic technique. Inhabitants from both sites were and flake based stone industry; 2) assem- able to gain access, either directly or blage dominated by raw materials (Szentgál through exchange, to raw materials found in radiolarite, Úrkut-Eplény radiolarite, the Bakony Mountains where there are no Hárskút radiolarite, etc.) attainable from the known Starcˇevo sites. To this I would only Bakony Mountains north of Lake Balaton; 3) add that based on the illustrations in their high ratio of flakes and chips in conjunction article I am skeptical as to whether the arti- with numerous exhausted cores suggests that facts classified as segments are technologi- inhabitants produced chipped stone tools cally comparable to similarly labeled on-site; 4) flakes and chips dominate the Mesolithic artifacts. overall assemblage with tools produced on Discussions of continuity between the both flakes and blades; and 5) retouched Transdanubian Mesolithic hunter-gatherers tools recorded also include points, borers, and the Starcˇevo culture have often been burins, wedges, end scrapers, trapezes and based on comparison of Starcˇevo lithic segments. assemblages with poorly investigated or The smaller (n=126) lithic assemblage hypothetical “Mesolithic” sites. There are from the Vörs-Máriaasszony-sziget site two implicit underlying assumptions which

179 Student Conference 2004 can be recognized in these discussions. First, 2003). Lithic artifacts are often the most Biró (in Kalicz, et al. 1998: 164) considers common, if not the only, type of material that lithic industries are more conservative recovered from Mesolithic sites in the over long periods of time, which is a tenable Carpathian Basin, and it is for this reason hypothesis, but such hypotheses reveal little that a better understanding of the lithic about Mesolithic lithic assemblages unless assemblages from Starcˇevo sites will be quite continuity is accepted as predetermined. important to understanding the relationship Second, the “Mesolithic Master’s of Stone between these two groups. Hypothesis” is based the notion that if The dating of Starcˇevo sites in Hungary Mesolithic sites are known primarily from and Slavonia is almost entirely based on rel- lithic assemblages, then it follows that those ative ceramic chronology. In his doctoral Early Neolithic sites rich in stone tools and thesis on the Early Neolithic Starcˇevo cul- types implicate technological con- ture in Transdanubia Kalicz (1988; 1990) tinuity in lithic industries between the two modified Dimitrijevic´’s (1974) ceramic industries. It is possible to recognize some typology (from oldest to youngest: Mono- aspects of the “Mesolithic Master’s of Stone chrome, Linear A, Linear B-Girlandoid- Hypothesis” in the following statement: Spiraloid A, and Spiraloid B) to assign rela- “…the morphologically more varied [Early tive chronological position to the Hungarian Neolithic] tool kit can be considered the Starcˇevo sites. According to Kalicz all the legacy of hunter-gatherer societies.” (Biró known Hungarian sites fall into either the 2002: 129). For example, if we consider the Classic Starcˇevo phase (elements of Dimitri- possible effects of settlement mobility jevic´’s Linear B, Girlandoid, and Spiraloid A (Whittle 2001) and consider lithic tool phases) or Late Starcˇevo (Dimitrijevic´’s Spi- diversity as an index of activity diversity, raloid B phase) (Kalicz 1988: 103-105). The then such sites may have witnessed a diversi- following two sites have been assigned to the ty of activities possibly carried out over an Classic Starcˇevo phase: Lánycsók and Medi- extended period of time. A diverse lithic tool na (Kalicz 1988: 103-104). The following kit has little bearing on hunter-gatherer seven sites have been assigned to the Late roots. At the very least there is a need to Starcˇevo phase: Becsehely I, Dombóvár- consider a wider range of possible underly- Kapos, Kaposvár-Deseda, and Harc- ing causes for the structure of Neolithic lith- Nyanyapuszta all assigned by Kalicz (1988: ic assemblages. The presence of a lithic 104); and later Gellénháza-Városrét (Simon industry, which is probably similar to an 1996), Vörs-Máriaasszony-sziget (Kalicz, et unknown Mesolithic lithic industry, does lit- al. 1998), and Babarc (Bánffy 2001). Kalicz tle more than suggest continuity, but reveals hypothesized that more sites would eventu- little about the actual process of neolithiza- ally be assignable to the Late Starcˇevo phase tion. This is especially pertinent both in as a result of increasing population after ini- light of the fact that little information is tial adoption of agriculture or settlement by available on the full range of sites which may agricultural immigrants. More recently be associated with the Neolithic (Early to investigated sites, such as Gellénháza Late) and that it is increasingly recognized (Simon 1996, 2001), Vörs-Máriaass- that neolithization was a more protracted zonysziget (Kalicz, et al. 1998: 160-164), and process than originally figured (Gronenborn Babarc (Bánffy 2001) have tended to con-

180 Mr. William J. Eichmann. Mesolithic Hunter-Gatherers firm Kalicz’s original hypothesis and both Two radiocarbon dates have been reported sites have been assigned to the Late Starcˇevo from two Starcˇevo sites in Hungary: Becse- (Spiraloid B phase). Significantly, the site of hely I and Vörs-Máriaasszony-sziget. Becse- Babarc is located in close proximity to the hely I, assigned to the Late Starcˇevo by ceramic typologically assigned Classic ceramic chronology, has produced a radio- Starcˇevo Lánycsók site. carbon date of 5550-5290 cal. B.C. (2 sig.) The dating of sites in Slavonia using Dim- (Kalicz 1988: 106-107; 1990: 92). From itrijevic´’s chronology indicates that there are Vörs-Máriaasszony-sziget a single radiocar- no sites from the oldest Monochrome phase. bon date, similar to the previous date, from Sites assigned to the Linear A phase are the human burial without grave goods, found primarily in south central Slavonia unearthed by Aradi in 1990, has been near the Sava River (Zadubravlje, Bukovlje reported. Podvinjsko, Slavonski Brod) with the excep- The single radiocarbon date from Becsehe- tion of a single site located in northeastern ly I and Vörs show complete overlap with Slavonia on the Danube River (Erdut). Sites better dated early LBK site of Brunn- assignable to Kalicz’s Classic Starcˇevo (Dim- Wolfholz near Vienna. A compilation of the itrijevic´’s Linear B, Girlandoid, and Spi- 27 radiocarbon dates from Brunn-Wolfholz raloid A phases) are found throughout indicate a date of occupation of 5700-5050 Slavonia. It is interesting to note that while cal. B.C. (2 sig.) (Stadler 1995: 224). This sites assignable to Kalicz’s Late Starcˇevo information suggests, but far from confirms, (Dimitrijevic´’s Spiraloid B) are distributed that the neolithization of Transdanubia pro- throughout Slavonia, the furthest north- gressed northward at a rapid rate, without western Starcˇevo site (Zˇdralovi) is assignable any major ecological barriers (contra to this phase. Depending on the degree of Kertész and Sümegi 1999, 2001), or if such confidence one places in Dimitrijevic´’s impediments were encountered they were chronology it is possible to suggest the fol- rapidly overcome. On the other hand if the lowing steps in the expansion of the Starcˇevo recognized site densities are considered culture in Transdanubia and Slavonia: 1) ini- indicative of actual site densities, then it is tial spread in of the Sava and Danube River possible to posit that Early Neolithic groups valleys; 2) infilling of central Slavonia and encountered some type of diffuse environ- northern Slavonia along the lower Drava, as mental resistance, similar to the barrier well as, the more eastern regions in Hungar- described by Kertész and Sümegi, as they ian Transdanubia close to the Danube; and began to expand northwards through Slavo- 3) expansion of to the west in Slavonia and nia and into Hungary. Many questions, per- to the northwest in southern Hungarian taining to the temporal and spatial pattern- Transdanubia. ing of Neolithic spread, most notably in A detailed comparison of the Dimitrijevic´ regard the Middle Neolithic LBK culture in relative ceramic chronology with radiocar- Transdanubia, remain undiscussible in the bon dates from Starcˇevo sites throughout absence of more radiocarbon dates from the their distribution range is difficult given the Hungarian sites. paucity of radiocarbon dates from Starcˇevo sites in its northern distribution area of Hungary and Slavonia (Kalicz 1988: 107).

181 Student Conference 2004

Aftermath of Starcˇevo: the was extraordinarily sudden, probably occur- Linearbandkeramik Culture ring in less than 200 years (Quitta and Kohl (LBK) 1969). More recent radiocarbon research, The effects of the Starcˇevo culture were often focusing on the intricacies of calibra- significant for not only Transdanubia, but tion and materials being dated, has general- also for the rest of north central Europe. ly tended to confirm earlier observations During the middle 6th millennium B.C., regarding the rate of expansion (Stäuble roughly 5,500 B.C., the Starcˇevo culture was 1995; Whittle 1990). Early on Quitta (1964; transformed throughout its entire distribu- 1971) suggested that early LBK sites would tion in Transdanubia and in its place the be found further to the south, but it was not Transdanubian Linearbandkeramik (TLBK) until the independent and combined efforts (also referred to as Transdanubian Linear of Kalicz and Makkay that undisputable ear- Pottery-TLP or Dunántúli Vonaldíszes ly LBK sites were recognized and excavated. Kerámia-DVK) culture developed. Within The first sites excavated were Medina approximately 200 years LBK expanded into (Kalicz and Makkay 1975b, 1976), Bicske I north central Europe occupying a 400,000 (Makkay 1975, 1978), and Becsehely II km2 region, from the Rhine River in the (Kalicz 1979). As a result of this research it West to the Bug River in the East (Bogucki became clear that the flash pan for early 2000; Gronenborn 1999, 2003). The earliest LBK expansion was localizable to the Trans- LBK is associated with distinctive incised danubian region in western Hungary. Subse- pottery decorations on chaff or sand tem- quent research has added significantly to our pered pottery, large long houses (Lenneis understanding of both the Balkan Early 2000), and shifts in the subsistence economy Neolithic Starcˇevo culture and Middle from the emphasis of sheep and goats to cat- Neolithic Linearbandkeramik, but by the tle (Bogucki 1988). However, it is important mid 1970’s the underlying framework was in to note that there remains significant discus- place for asking more serious questions per- sion regarding the actual relationship taining to the mechanism of agricultural between ceramic typologies and the radio- spread in this region. carbon chronology (Gronenborn 2003: 80- Since the 1970’s a number of significant 81). The sites of Brunn-Wolfholz and Szent- early LBK sites have been investigated. The györgyvölgy-Pityerdomb, with possible sites of (Kalicz 1993: Abb. 22-23; transitional Starcˇevo-LBK ceramics, have 1995: Abb.9-11) and Szentgyörgyvölgy- figured prominently in these debates. The Pityerdomb (Bánffy 2000a, b, c) were exca- centrality of Transdanubia to this process vated near the Drava and Mura Rivers in did not become apparent until the middle southwest Hungary. The site of Szentgyör- 1970’s, and similar to the research leading to gyvölgy-Pityerdomb is particularly impor- the recognition of the Early Neolithic tant, because its ceramic assemblage demon- Starcˇevo culture in Hungary, the research strates the mixing of decorative motifs from began outside of Hungary. Late Starcˇevo and Early LBK and it may The German archaeologist Quitta (1960) represent transitional phase between Late presented his synthesis of the earliest Lin- Starcˇevo and Early LBK (Bánffy 2000c). earbandkeramik (LBK) culture in Germany. Although, Gronenborn (2003) notes that the Seminal efforts to date LBK in north central radiocarbon dates may suggest a spatially Europe indicated that its initial appearance and temporally highly complex process of

182 Mr. William J. Eichmann. Mesolithic Hunter-Gatherers neolithization in Transdanubia. Portions of (< 10%), at the early LBK sites of Kladniky the recently excavated Balatonszárszó site, a and the cemetery of Vedrovice. Gronenborn massive site with many long houses on the has also noted a similar widespread distribu- southern shores of Lake Balaton, will most tion of Szentgál radiolarite amongst early likely be assignable to the earliest LBK LBK assemblages in Central Europe (Gro- (Oross and Marton personal communica- nenborn 1994, 1999). The early Neolithic tion). On the left bank of the Danube River LBK societies not only maintained with but the site of Baja was investigated by Kalicz also intensified connections with the Szent- (Kalicz 1993: Abb. 24-26; 1994; 1995: Abb gál radiolarite sources in Transdanubia. The 12-14). In northern Transdanubia excava- results of Gronenborn’s and Mateiciuvová’s tions were conducted at the sites of Budapest are suggestive of the intensification of III-Aranyhegyi út. (Kalicz-Schreiber and Mesolithic exchange networks during the Kalicz 1992) and Szigetszentmiklós (Virág early phases of LBK expansion. Unfortu- 1992). Many of these sites are still in the nately, the robustness of connections which process of analysis and it is hoped that com- can be drawn on the basis of lithic raw mate- plete reports will be reported in the near rial economy between the insufficiently future. Kalicz and Kalicz-Schreiber (2001: investigated Mesolithic Kaposhomok site 27) remark that the current number of and Starcˇevo and LBK sites in Transdanubia known early LBK sites, assigned by ceramic is limited to the observation that Szentgál typology, in Transdanubia is over ninety. radiolarite is present in the Kaposhomok Among the more significant recent work assemblage (Marton 2003: 41). suggesting a role for Mesolithic hunter- The processes which facilitated the LBK gatherers in the LBK spread is Mateiciu- expansion undoubtedly included the vová’s research on raw material distribution Starcˇevo culture; there are simply too many during the Mesolithic and Early Neolithic similarities between the ceramic assem- (Mateiciucová 2001). She examined the lith- blages and other aspects of material culture ic raw materials from a number of assem- to suggest otherwise. However, the extent to blages from Mesolithic sites in the Moravia which the process was entirely the result of (Czech Republic) with the lithic assemblages internalized Starcˇevo cultural development, from a number of early LBK sites in the excluding local Mesolithic hunter-gatherer region (Mateiciuvová 2001) [see Map Mate- populations, remains an open question. The iciuvová 2002: 184-185]. In particular she two greatest uncertainties regarding the notes the low level presence (<1%) presence neolithization of Transdanubia can be of Szentgál radiolarite, a distinct red radio- encapsulated in the following questions. larite found in the Bakony Mountains north First, what was the relationship between of Lake Balaton in Hungary (Biró and Mesolithic hunter-gatherers the Starcˇevo Dobosi 1991; Biró and 1991), at the culture? Second, what role did Mesolithic Mesolithic sites of Smolín, Prˇibice, and pos- hunter-gatherers play in the initial develop- sibly also Dolní Veˇstonice. In early LBK ment and expansion of LBK? It is puzzling, assemblages from the Austrian sites of Brunn and by no means easily dismissible, that so II (see also Mateiciucová 2002) and Rosen- few Mesolithic sites have been identified burg I she notes an unusually high percent- incidental to archaeological fieldwork in age (> 50%) of Szentgál radiolarite. Szentgál Transdanubia. On the other hand, one need radiolarite is also present, but at lower levels only consider that Early Neolithic Starcˇevo

183 Student Conference 2004 sites, which presumably more detectable in pertinent issue: roughly 4000 years of Early surface surveys than Mesolithic sites, were Holocene in western Hungary only recognized during the past quarter cen- has gone missing. Given the current infor- tury as a result of concerted research efforts. mation available it is difficult to conceptual- The final section of this paper outlines the ize the spread of agricultural societies with- initial steps in the development of a sus- out first attempting to reconcile the gross tained research investigating the Mesolithic imparities between agricultural and hunter- inhabitants of Transdanubia prior to and gatherer societies, reflecting more than any- during the spread of agriculture. thing the availability of evidence. The virtual lack of Mesolithic sites in Research Directions for the Transdanubia, in juxtaposition with the sig- Mesolithic of Hungary nificance of the region during the spread of Over the course of my Fulbright fellowship agriculture, presents a rather drab picture of to Hungary I have had the opportunity to one of the more exciting moments in prehis- directly confront the topic of the spread of tory. I have been fortunate to have found agriculture in the Carpathian Basin. A sig- several of likeminded Hungarian archaeolo- nificant amount of time and energy has been gists (Dr. Eszter Bánffy, Dr. Róbert Kertész, devoted to developing a thorough under- and Tibor Marton), and we have embarked standing of the research history, familiarity on a collaborative mission to add a little with the artifacts (stone tools, pottery, etc.), Mesolithic color and clarity to the picture of and long-term changes in Hungarian envi- neolithization in Transdanubia. The princi- ronment. In Transdanubia the Early pal question stimulating research on the Neolithic Starcˇevo culture and the Transdanubian Mesolithic has been: How Mesolithic in particular, stand out as areas in can we explain an almost complete lack of need of further development. Previous evidence from the Mesolithic in western approaches to the spread of agriculture in Hungary? In addressing this question sever- Hungary have primarily confronted the al interrelated causes may be postulated: 1) process from the perspective of the earliest high-mobility Holocene hunter-gatherers Neolithic societies. One of the principal produced ephemeral sites difficult to detect; causes for this one-sided approach is the 2) Mesolithic sites have been eroded, buried, minimal and insufficiently investigated transgressed by rising water levels (e.g. Lake archaeological evidence available from Balaton), or negatively impacted by other Holocene hunter-gatherer societies. In a geological or anthropogenic processes; 3) general sense, current models positing a sig- previous survey work was insufficiently sen- nificant role for Mesolithic hunter-gatherers sitive to detect Mesolithic sites. Thus the in the spread of agriculture, or at the very issue of the missing Mesolithic revolves least seeking to incorporate hunter-gather- around the site producing behavior of the ers into the process, have stimulated thought hunter-gatherers themselves, the deposition on the complex process by which agricultur- and preservation conditions, and the manner al societies may have spread. However, nar- in which archaeologists detect sites (for rowly focusing on the process by which agri- futher discussion see Banning 2002). Some cultural societies spread without incorporat- initial impressions on the possible role of all ing long-term trends in hunter-gatherer three are in order. social evolution obfuscates an absolutely First, as outlined in earlier sections of this

184 Mr. William J. Eichmann. Mesolithic Hunter-Gatherers paper, hunter-gatherers had to rapidly adapt other areas with the potential for rich aquat- to a changing environment during the Pleis- ic resources are first on the list of places to tocene-Holocene transition. Changes in explore. It is equally important to keep in resource distribution undoubtedly stimulat- mind the full spectrum of factors, other than ed changes in the organization of seasonal resource distribution, which structured settlement patterns. The extent to which hunter-gatherer settlement patterns and Mesolithic hunter-gatherer behavior was behavior (Jochim 1976: 47-63; Wiessner centered on particular locations on the land- 1982, 2002; Wobst 1974). Kelly states: scape directly impacts the degree to which We need to approach archaeology archaeologists are able to recognize such not with the goal of assigning a site sites. To a certain extent, locations occupied or time period to a particular typo- for extended periods of time, by large logical pigeonhole, but with the groups, or consistently revisited are more intention of reconstructing differ- likely to be detected, but only if the materi- ent cultural elements – diet, mobil- al refuse left behind has been preserved. It is ity, demography, land tenure, social thus possible that sites occupied for shorter organization- as best we can, then periods, but associated with activities pro- assemble them, like piecing togeth- ducing easily preserved refuse, may also be er a jigsaw puzzle with no picture more easily detected by archaeologists. Fur- on the box. (Kelly 1995: 343) thermore, the diagnostic attributes of the The usage of both archaeological and ethno- refuse produced at each site will impact its graphic analogies in the description of likelihood of detection. For example, an hunter-gather behavior should always be intensively occupied site with a significant tempered with the notion that we seek to amount of lithic waste, but no diagnostic describe a situation for which no appropriate geometric microliths, will probably not be modern analogy may exist. recognized as a Mesolithic site. At this point Second, over the past 12,000 years geolog- we do not know whether Mesolithic hunter- ical processes resulting from natural and gatherers in Transdanubia produced the anthropogenic causes, or a combination of type of intensive sites necessary for further both, impact the ability to detect Mesolithic archaeological investigation. However, both sites (e.g. see Waters 1992). Fortunately, the general models for hunter-gatherer settle- thick depositing of loess sediments at the ment, often based on ethnographic exam- end of the Pleistocene, which resulted in the ples, as well as, the archaeological evidence burial of many Late Paleolithic sites, is less from preceding periods and adjacent regions of a factor during the Early Holocene. The suggest that such central sites existed during landscape has however remained far from the Mesolithic for a variety of social and eco- stable. For example the shifting of river nomic reasons. For example, the importance channels, low energy flood deposits, erosion of aquatic resources and riparian corridors is of hillsides due to prehistoric logging, and attested by the evidence from the Late Pleis- modern farming practices all can erode, tocene site of Szekszárd-Palánk (Sio River), expose, or bury archaeological sites. The the probable Mesolithic site of Kaposhomok identification of stable surfaces through (Kapos River), and the Jászság Mesolithic cooperation with geomorphologists will be sites (Tarna and Zagyva River). In an effort an important component of a project aiming to produce positive results river valleys or to find Mesolithic sites. Archaeological sur-

185 Student Conference 2004 vey design must account for modern land prehistoric remains is not prone to ease of use practices affecting the exposure (e.g. recognition. It now seems relatively clear plowing, quarrying, etc.) or coverage (e.g. that Transdanubia, sandwiched between the forest, pasture, etc.) of land surfaces. influences of the Western Technocomplex Third, there has been no archaeological (Beuronian, Sauveterrian) and the North survey specifically directed toward the Hungarian Plain Mesolithic, will be charac- detection of Mesolithic sites in western terized to a certain extent by a similar mix of Hungary. Archaeological surveys conducted Epigravettian substrata with elements of the during the last century in Hungary have Western Technocomplex: a situation sug- focused almost exclusively on surfaces gested by the Kaposhomok site (Marton exposed by modern agricultural practices. 2003: 42). In the initial stages of archaeolog- This may work well in regions were most of ical field survey one of the central goals will the land is under the plow (e.g. Alföld), but be to locate isolated sites that are both free in areas with variable exposure, such as from materials associated with either Transdanubia, it may be more difficult to Neolithic or Copper Age cultures and not representatively sample the landscape. The sufficiently damaged by later cultural activi- results of larger surveys in Veszprém Coun- ties: not necessarily the easiest task given ty (M.R.T.) and smaller surveys along the that narrow river valleys have witnessed Kapos and Koppány rivers (Torma 1963) intensive cultural activity during all subse- have turned up only sites from the Neolith- quent time periods. A constant challenge ic or later periods (all ceramic using). Unlike will be dealing with geometric most later prehistoric periods in which the types which are not temporally restricted to presence of ceramics greatly increases the the Mesolithic and appear in later periods, odds of site detection, finding small such as trapezes and segments. Mesolithic geometric microliths is highly dependent upon the soil surface conditions. Preliminary Research Results Namely, personal experience suggests that The research that my Hungarian col- such sites are easily missed if plowed surfaces leagues and I have been engaged in over the have not been deflated by precipitation or past year has focused on the following inves- remain covered in vegetation. The window tigative arenas: 1) the reinvestigation of sites of opportunity for detecting Mesolithic sites which have been claimed to be Mesolithic, may be narrowly assignable to short periods but which have only marginally been inves- before planting in the spring and after har- tigated; and 2) prospective survey work vest in the fall. aimed at locating potential sites, necessarily Finally, the recognition of Mesolithic sites involving the cooperation of local amateur depends upon our ability to detect diagnos- archaeologists. Both avenues of inquiry have tically Mesolithic artifacts; almost exclusive- required the examination of museum and ly limited to lithics. Prior to Kertész’s work private collections, as well as, the organiza- in the Jászság region in the 1990’s there was tion of field projects aimed at locating/relo- only a limited sense of the types of stone cating and documenting sites. artifacts which might be associated with the First, we decided to focus on the Kapos Mesolithic Hungary, much less Transdanu- River valley for two reasons: 1) location of bia. The image of an ill-defined edifice lurk- the minimally investigated probable ing amongst more visible trappings of later Mesolithic site of Kaposhomok (Marton

186 Mr. William J. Eichmann. Mesolithic Hunter-Gatherers

2003; Pusztai 1957); and 2) a possible nary observations on the collection suggest Mesolithic site near Regöly brought to the following: 1) significant presence of Kertész’s attention in the early 1990’s by Mr. Bakony Mountain radiolarites (e.g. Szent- Viktor Cziráki. In the fall of 2003 we organ- gál); 2) high proportion of flakes and blades ized a small prospective archaeological sur- which were either informally retouched or vey with a number of university student vol- damaged during usage; 3) numerous unteers from Miskolc. The purpose of our “thumbnail” scrapers and trapezes, but no research was to investigate the sites near segments; and 4) presence of sickle gloss on Regöly and Kaposhomok, as well as, to a number of the artifacts, including a biface familiarize ourselves with the geography and type associated with Copper Age assem- look for new sites along the Kapos flood- blages. The overall character of the assem- plain between Regöly and Kaposhomok. blage is one, with a few exceptions, that The results of the survey for new sites lead would fit well within what we suspect a to the discovery of two new sites of interest: Transdanubian Mesolithic assemblage may one south west of Belecska (Belecska-3) and look like. The presence of sickle gloss on a second north of Kurd (Kurd-2). Both sites stone tools is often given as the cause for were located along abandoned meanders of assigning an assemblage to the Neolithic or the Kapos River. Belecska-2 was deemed later periods; however, this practice ignores interesting on the basis of the recovery of a the fact that reeds and other grasses, which triangular geometric microlith; although, a may also produce sickle gloss, were likely to scatter of ceramic sherds of uncertain age was have been intensively exploited by Mesolith- located immediately adjacent to the lithic ic people for basketry, clothing, and shelter. scatter. Kurd-2 was identified as a larger con- The almost complete lack of ceramic mate- centration of lithic artifacts with Bronze Age rial and total dominance of lithic items ceramics present on the extreme margin of strongly suggests that the site was probably the site. No diagnostic materials were recov- occupied by non-pottery using groups. As a ered. Another significant result of this survey result of these preliminary observations we was the identification of areas of high poten- returned to intensively survey the Regöly-2 tial that could not be immediately investigat- site in early April of 2004. We were able to ed, due to fresh plowing or vegetation cover- identify concentrations of lithics on the sur- age, but represent targets for the future. face of the site, and it seems that the pres- The site near Regöly (Regöly-2) had been ence of ceramic from later stone tool using collected by Mr. Cziráki for approximately cultures is minimal to non-existent. We are 15 years, and he brought the site to Kertész’s planning small scale excavations in the fall of attention, because the site had yielded 2004 to determine if intact cultural layers numerous lithic artifacts with only a few are present below the plow zone, and also ceramic sherds that could be clearly assigned the nature of such cultural layers, if present. to the Late Iron Age or Roman period. Sur- Immediately prior to the submission of this vey of Regöly-2 was hampered by poor paper a second site was identified near lighting conditions and weather, but Mr. Regöly that produced two diagnostically Cziráki kindly provided us with his entire Mesolithic segments (backed retouch from collection of materials from this site for fur- alternating directions) and an interesting ther study. These materials are currently in backed . the process of being examined, and prelimi- The site of Kaposhomok was first identi-

187 Student Conference 2004 fied and collected by Mr. Antál Trombitás in 100 artifacts, while only 49 artifacts cata- the early 1950’s. In the middle 1950’s Mr. logued and of which 34 were locatable in the Trombitás brought the site to the attention Rippl-Rónai Museum. Mr. Trombitás has of Rezsô Pusztai who apparently investigat- since lent us the remainder of his collection ed the find location, but probably did not and has agreed to accompany us to the conduct excavations or other form of inten- Kaposhomok site to help clarify the situa- sive investigations (Pusztai 1957). The arti- tion. We are planning to conduct small scale facts were subsequently donated to the Rip- excavations at Kaposhomok during the sum- pl-Rónai Museum in Kaposvár. The site has mer of 2004 in the hopes of defining the since come to be accepted in the interna- actual site location and searching for tional literature as the only legitimate undamaged cultural deposits. Mesolithic site in Transdanubia (e.g. Finally, we our research program also Kozlowski 2001), but numerous questions includes the review of materials recovered remain regarding the context of the finds from sites in countries adjacent to Hungary. (Marton 2003: 42). According to the maps in The collection from Barca I in Slovakia is Pusztai’s article (1957: 97), there are two currently in the process of examination and sites from which the Kaposhomok collection the site of Nosza-Pörös near Hajdukova in originates. However, we encountered some northern Serbia. Nosza-Pörös was original- difficulty in locating the site. The western ly reported by Brukner as the Hajdukova most area indicated on the map was in a site, and in the original article he suggest plowed field but we were unable locate any that the site may be Mesolithic (Brukner concentration of chipped stone artifacts. 1966). In his article Brukner also presented The eastern site on Pusztai’s map, apparent- illustrations of six geometric microliths (seg- ly situated on a large sand dune next to an ments and trapezes). Tibor Marton later abandoned meander of the Kapos River, was encountered a publication from the Suboti- covered in pasture. With help from the good ca museum, in which more suspicious geo- citizens of Kaposhomok, we were able to metric microliths were pictured. This March locate Mr. Trombitás, now 74 years old and we visited the Subotica Museum, and with living in Kaposvár. Mr. Trombitás informed the gracious assistance of Ágnes Szekeres, us that the western site was not the site from were able to relocate and fully document this which the collection had originated, and the collection. Among the significant discoveries eastern site was the true location from which were two backed points which fit within the the Kaposhomok artifacts had been collect- Late Epigravettian tradition: this is quite ed. He further stated that while he was serv- peculiar given that the collection also ing in the army, László Vertés had selected includes numerous trapezes (Castelnovian several pieces from the original collection influences), which seem to indicate a later and accessioned them into the collections of period of site occupation. Like many poten- the Hungarian National Museum in tial Mesolithic sites in southeastern Europe, Budapest. Furthermore, Mr. Trombitás this site comes from surface collections and related that he had retained 61 of the its context is uncertain. This summer we chipped stone artifacts from the original col- plan to return to Subotica and attempt to lection: This may account for some of the relocate the Nosza-Pörös site. discrepancies noted by Marton (2003: 39) regarding Pusztai’s mention of more than

188 Mr. William J. Eichmann. Mesolithic Hunter-Gatherers

Conclusion are directed at establishing informational parity amongst the various participants in Currently the question of how agriculture the process of neolithization. It is our hope spread in the Carpathian basin is trumped by that this research may substantially enrich the question of who was involved. Certainly, the manner in which both researchers and it is not possible to avoid discussing ques- the public understand this important prehis- tions of process until the moment when we toric period. have perfectly comprehended the different participants. Such moments of total compre- Acknowledgments hension do not exist in archaeology. The dif- I would like to thank the American and ferent ways in which researchers construe Hungarian Fulbright organization and for the processes of neolithization play an the opportunity to study in Hungary over important role in directing inquiry into the this past year. My advisors in Hungary, Dr. identification of participants. Implicitly Eszter Bánffy and Dr. Róbert Kertész, as neglecting the question of the participants well as, my colleague Tibor Marton have will unnecessarily limit our ability to devel- contributed immensely to the success of this op a richer picture of the past. It has been research. Thanks are also in order for the my goal to draw attention to the limitations long list of university students, researchers, of archaeological information bearing on the and archaeology enthusiasts who have pro- different participants, and especially vided stimulating conversation partners, self- Mesolithic participants, in the neolithization lessly helped with the arduous fieldwork, or of Transdanubia and Europe. The steps my made access to museum collections reality. Hungarian colleagues and I have initiated

References

Banner, J. Arandjelovic, D. and D. Garasˇanin 1943 Az Újabbkôkori Lakóházkutatás Mai Állása Mag- 1954 Starcevacka Kultura, Ljubljana. yarországon. Archaeologiai Értesíto˝ (Budapest) 4:1-28.

Bánffy, E. Banning, E. B. 2000a The Late Starcevo and the Earliest Linear Pottery 2002 Archaeological Survey. Manuals in Archaeological Groups in . Documenta Praehistorica Method, Theory, and Technique. Kluwer 27:173-185. Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York. 2000b Neue Daten zur Enstehung der Bandkeramik. In

Karanovo III. Beiträge zum Neolithikum in Südosteuropa, edit- Bárta, J. ed by S. Hiller and V. Nikolov, pp. 375-382, Wein. 1955 Tomásˇikovo, mezolitická stanica na Slovensku.

2000c Starcevo und/oder LBK? Varia Neolithica 1:47-60. Archaeologické Royhledy (Praha) 7:433-436.

2001 Neue Funde der Starcevo-Kultur in Südtransdanu- 1957 Pleistocénne piesocné duny pri Seredi a ich paleol- bien. In Bibleotheca Historica et Archaeologica Banatica: itické a mezolitické osídlenie - Pleistozäne Sanddünen bei Festschrift für Gheorghe Lazarovici: Zum 60. Geburtstag, edit- Sered und ihre paläolithische und mesolithiche Besiedlung. ed by F. Drasovean, pp. 41-58. vol. 15. Museum Banaticum Slovenská Archaeológia (Bratislava) 5(1):5-72. Temesiense, Timisoara.

189 Student Conference 2004

1960 Mezolitická industria z Mostovej pri Galante. Binford, L. R. Archaeologické Royhledy (Praha) 12:785-790. 1990 Mobility, Housing and Environment: A Compara- tive Study. Journal of Anthropological Research 46(2):119-152. 1965 Slovensko v Starsˇej a stredej dobe kamennej, Bratislava. 2001 Constructing Frames of Reference: An Analytical 1972 Die mittlere Steinzeit in der Slowakei. Acta Prae- Method for Archaeological Theory Building Using Hunter-Gath- historica et Archaeologica (Berlin) 3:57-76. erer and Environmental Data Sets. University of California 1973 Le Mésolithique en Slovaquie. In The Mesolithic in Press, Berkeley. Europe: Papers Read at the International Archaeological Sympo- sium on the Mesolithic in Europe, Warsaw, May, 7 - 12, 1973, Biró, K. T. edited by S. K. Kozlowski, pp. 53 - 75. Warsaw University 1992 Mencshely-Murvagödrök Kôanyaga. - Steinarte- Press, Warsaw. facte aus neue Grabungen von Mencshely. Tapolcai Városi Múzeum Közleményei (Tapolca) 2 (1991/1992):51-72. 1980a Das Mesolithikum im Nordwestlichen Teil des Karpatenbeckens. Veröffentlichungen des Museums für Ur- 2002 Advances in the Study of Early Neolithic Lithic und Frühgeschichte (Potsdam) 14-15:295-300. Materials in Hungary. In Prehistoric Studies in memorium Ida Bognár-Kutzián, edited by E. Bánffy, pp. 119-168. vol. 1980b Paleolit a mezolit - Paläolithikum und Antaeus (25), Budapest. Mesolithikum. Slovenská Archaeológia (Bratislava) 28:119- 136. Biró, K. T. and V. T. Dobosi 1985 Hunting of Brown Bears in the Mesolithic: Evi- 1991 Lithotheca: Comparative Raw Material Collection of dence from Medvedia Cave Near Ruzˇín in Slovakia. In The the Hungarian National Museum. Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum, Mesolithic in Europe, edited by C. Bonsall, pp. 456-460. John Budapest. Donald Publishers, Edinburgh.

Biró, K. T. and J. Regenye 1990 Mezolitickí Lovci v Medvedej Jaskyni Pri Ruzˇíne - 1991 Prehistoric Workshop and Exploitation site at Chasseurs Mésolithiques de la Grotte des Ours (Medvedia Szentgál-Tüzköveshegy. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scien- Jaskyna), Près de Ruzˇín (dist. Kosˇice). Slovenská Archaeológia tiarum Hungaricae (Budapest) 43:337-375. (Bratislava) 38(1):30.

Biró, K. T. and K. H. Simon Bar-Yosef, O. and R. H. Meadow 2003 Lithic Material of the Starcevo Culture at Gellén- 1995 The Origins of Agriculture in the . In háza-Városrét. In Morgenrot der Kulturen: Frühe Etappen der Last Hunters - First Farmers, edited by A. B. Gebauer, pp. Menschheitsgeschichte in Mittel- und Südosteuropa - Festschrift 39-94. School of American Research Press, Sante Fe. für Nándor Kalicz zum 75. Geburtstag, edited by E. Jerem and P. Raczky, pp. 115-126. Archaeolingua, Budapest. Berg, F. and A. Gulder 1956 Vorläufiger Bericht über eine neue niederösterre- Bognár-Kutzián, I. ichische Mesolithstation aus Kamegg im Kamptal. Archae- 1977 Ausgrabung in Szakmár-Kisülés im Jahre 1975. ologia Austriaca (Wein) 19-20:49-62. Mitteilungen des Archäologischen Instituts der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Budapest) 7:13-16 and 165-167. Bergman, C. A. 1993 The Development of the Bow in : Bogucki, P. A Technological and Functional Perspective. In Hunting 1988 Forest Farmers and Stockherders: Early Agriculture and Animal Exploitation in the Later Palaeolithic and Mesolithic and its Consequences in North-Central Europe. Cambridge of , edited by P. Mellars, pp. 95-106. Archaeological University Press, Cambridge. Papers of the American Anthropological Association Num- ber 4. 190 Mr. William J. Eichmann. Mesolithic Hunter-Gatherers

2000 How Agriculture Came to North-central Europe. Festschrift für Nándor Kalicz zum 75. Geburtstag, edited by E. In Europe’s First Farmers, edited by T. D. Price, pp. 197- Jerem and P. Raczky, pp. 89-108. Archaeolingua, Budapest. 218. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Childe, V. G. Bökönyi, S. 1929 The Danube in Prehistory. Clarendon Press, Oxford. 1972 Auroch (Bos Primigenius Boj.) Remains from the Õrjeg Peat-Bogs Between the Danube and Tisza Rivers. Dimitrijevic, S. Cumania (Kecskemét) 1:17-56. 1966 Arheolosˇka iskopavanja na Podrucju vinkovackog Muzja. In Ergebnisse archäologischer Ausgrabunge auf dem 1974 History of Domestic Mammals in Central and Eastern Gebit des Museums von Vinkovci von 1957 bis 1963, Vinkovci. Europe, Budapest. 1969 Das Neolithikum in Syrmien, Slawonien und 1989 Animal Husbandry of the Körös-Starcevo Com- Nordwestkroatien - Einführung in den Stand der plex: Its Origin and Development. In Neolithic of Southeast- Forschung. Archaeologia Iugoslavica (Beograd) 10:39-76. ern Europe and Its Near Eastern Connections: International Conference 1987 Szolnok-Szeged, edited by S. Bökönyi, pp. 1971 Zu einigen Fragen des Spätneolithikums und Früh- 13-16. Varia Archaeologica Hungarica II. Publicationes neolithikums in Nordjugoslawien. In Actes du VIII Congres Instituti Archaeologici Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae International des Sciences Prehistoriques et Protohistoriques Budapestini, Budapest. Beograd 9-15 septembre 1971, edited by G. Novak, pp. 141- 172. vol. Tom. I, Beograd. 1992 The Early Neolithic Vertebrate Fuana of Endrod 119. In Cultural and Landscape Changes in South-East Hun- 1974 Das Problem der Gliederung der Starcevo-Kultur gary I: Reports on the Gyomaendrod Project, edited by S. mit besonderer Rücksicht auf den Beitrag der südpannonis- Bökönyi, pp. 195-300. vol. 1. 2 vols. Archaeolingua, chen Fundstellen zur Lösung dieses Problems. Materijali Budapest. 10:93-115.

1978 Das Neolithikum in Nordwestkoatien - Arheolosˇka Brukner, B. istrazˇivanja u Sjeverozapadnoj Hrvatskoj, pp. 71-128, 1966 Die tardenoisienischen Funde von “Peres” bei Haj- Zagreb. dukovó und aus Backa Palanka und das Problem der Beziehungen zwischen dem Mesolithikum und präkeramis- 1979 Sjeverna Zona. In Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalj, chen Neolithikum im Donaugebiet. Archaeologia Iugoslavica edited by A. Benac, pp. 229-360. vol. Band II: Neolitsko (Beograd) 7:1-12. doba, Sarajevo.

1974 The Early Neolithic Period. In Praihistorija Vojvo- Dobosi, V. T. dine - Vojvodina in Prehistory, edited by B. Brukner, B. 1975 Magyarorság Õs- és Középsôkôkori Lelôhely Jovanovic and N. Tasic, pp. 29-68; 429-433. Monumenta Katasztere. Archaeologiai Értesíto˝ (Budapest) 102:64-76. Archaeologica 1, Novi Sad. 1989 Madaras-Téglevetô Felsôpaleolit Telep, Régészeti

Chapman, J. C. Feldolgozás. Cumania 11:45-58. 1985 Demographic Trends in Neothermal South-East 2001 Antecedents: in the Jászság Europe. In The Mesolithic in Europe, edited by C. Bonsall. Region. In From the Mesolithic to the Neolithic: Proceedings of John Donald Publishers, Edinburgh. the International Archaeological Conference held in the Dam-

2003 From Franchthi to the Tiszazug: Two Early janich Museum of Szolnok, September 22-27, 1996, edited by Neolithic Worlds. In Morgenrot der Kulturen: Frühe Etappen R. Kertész and J. Makkay, pp. 177-192. Archaeolingua, der Menschheitsgeschichte in Mittel- und Südosteuropa - Budapest.

191 Student Conference 2004

Dobosi, V. T. and E. Kövecses-Varga Entwicklungsfase des Ackerbaues (Neolithicum und 1991 Upper Palaeolithic Site at -Gyurgyalag. Kupferzeit)Archaeobotanische Skizze. Tapolcai Városi Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae Múzeum Közleményei (Tapolca) 1:139-238. (Budapest) 43:233-255. Gábori, M. Domboróczki, L. 1956a Az Epipaleolitikum Lelôhelye Honton. Archaeolo- 1997 Füzesabony-Gubakút. Újkökori Falu a Kr. e. VI giai Értesíto˝ (Budapest) 83:125-138. Évezredböl. - Neolithic Village From the 6th Millenium B. 1956b Mezolitikus leletek Szôdligetrôl - Mesolithische C. In Utak a Múltba. - Path into the Past, edited by P. Funde von Szôdliget. Archaeologiai Értesíto˝ (Budapest) Raczky, pp. 19-27, Budapest. 83:177-182.

2001 The Excavation at Füzesabony-Gubakút: Prelimi- 1964 A Késo˝i Paleolitikum Magyarországon. Akadémiai nary Report. In From the Mesolithic to the Neolithic: Proceed- Kiadó, Budapest. ings of the International Archaeological Conference held in the 1968 Mesolithischer Zeltgrundriß in Szôdliget. Acta Damjanich Museum of Szolnok, September 22-27, 1996, edited Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae (Budapest) by R. Kertész and J. Makkay, pp. 193-214. Archaeolingua, 20:33-36. Budapest. 1981 Az Õsember Korának Kutatása Magyarországon. A 2003 Radiocarbon Data from Neolithic Archaeological Magzar Tudományos Akadémia Társadalmi-Töténeti Osztályá- Sites in (North-Eastern Hungary). Agria nak Közleményei 30(1):91-109. (Eger) 39:5-71. 1984 A Régibb Kôkor Magyarországon. In Magyarország

Ecsedy, I. Története I.: Elözmények és Magyar Történet 1242-ig I-II, 1978 Excavations at Lánycsók in 1976 (Preliminary edited by G. Székely, pp. 69-116, Budapest. Report). Janus Pannonius Múzeum Évkönyve (Pécs) 22 (1977):119-135. Gábori, M. and V. Gábori 1959 Der erste Paläolithische Hausgrundriß in Ungarn.

Fisher, L. E. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 2002 Mobility, Search Modes, and Food-Getting Tech- (Budapest) 9:19-34. nology: From Magdalenian to Early Mesolithic in the UPpper Danube Basin. In Beyond Foraging and Collecting: Gallus, M. ô ô ô Evolutionary Change in Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems, 1942 Gy r Története a K kortól a Bronzkorig. In Gy r edited by J. Habu, pp. 157-180. Fundamental Issues in Története a Vaskorszakig, edited by M. Gallus and S. Mithay, ô Archaeology, T. D. Price, general editor. Kluwer Academic pp. 14-31 and plates, Gy r. / Plenum Publishers, New York. Garasˇanin, D.

Fitzhugh, B. and J. Habu (editors) 1959 Nosa, Biserna Obala. AP 1. 2002 Beyond Foraging and Collecting: Evolutionary Change in Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems. Kluwer Academic / Gronenborn, D. Plenum Publishers, New York. 1994 Überlegungen zur Ausbreitung der bäuerlichen Wirtschaft in Mitteleuropa - Versuch einer kulturhis-

Füzes, M. torischen Interpretation atestbandkeramischer Silexin- 1990 Földmívelés Kezdeti Szakaszának (Neolitikum és ventare. Praehistorische Zeitschrift (Berlin-New York) Rézkor) Növényleletei Magyaroszágon (Archeobotanikai 69(2):135-151. Vázlat) - Die Pflanzenfunde in Ungarn der anfänglichen

192 Mr. William J. Eichmann. Mesolithic Hunter-Gatherers

1999 A Variation on a Basic Theme: The Transition to 1983b Kunpeszér-Felsôpeszéri út. Régészeti Füzetek Farming in Southern Central Europe. Journal of World Pre- (Budapest) 36:56-57. history 13(2):123-210. 1985a Kunadacs-Köztemetô. Régészeti Füzetek (Budapest) 38:17. 2003 Migration, acculturation and Culture Change in Western Temperate Eurasia, 6500-5000 cal BC. Documenta 1985b Kunpeszér-Felsôpeszéri út, Homokbánya. Régészeti Praehistorica 15:79-91. Füzetek (Budapest) 38:65.

1985c Kunpeszérü-Felsôpeszéri Str., Sandgrube. Archae- Gulder, A. ologiai Értesítô (Budapest) 112:281-282. 1953 Beiträge zur Kenntnis des Niederösterreichischen Mesolithikums. Archaeologia Austriaca (Wein) 12:5-32. Horváth, A. and E. H. Tóth 1984a Kunpeszér-Felsôpeszéri út-homokbánya. Régészeti Harris, D. R. Füzetek (Budapest) 37:62. 1990 Vavilov’s Concept of Centres of Origin of Cultivat- ô ed Plants: Its Genesis and Its Influence on the Study of 1984b Kunpeszérü-Fels peszéri Str.-Sandgrube. Archae- ô Agricultural Origins. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society ologiai Értesít (Budapest) 111:269-270. 39:7-16. Horváth, F. 1996 The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism 1989 A Survey on the Development of Neolithic Settle- in Eurasia. University College London Press, London. ment Pattern and House Types in the Tisza Region. In Neolithic of Southeastern Europe and Its Near Eastern Connec- Hertelendi, E., N. Kalicz, P. Raczky, F. Horváth, M. Veres, É. tions: International Conference 1987 Szolnok-Szeged, edited by Svingor, I. Futó and L. Bartosiewicz S. Bökönyi, pp. 85-102. Varia Archaeologica Hungarica II. 1995 Re-evaluation of the Neolithic in Eastern Hungary Publicationes Instituti Archaeologici Academiae Scien- Base on Calibrated Radiocarbon Dates. Radiocarbon tiarum Hungaricae Budapestini, Budapest. 37(2):239-244.

Horváth, F. and E. Hertelendi Hertelendi, E., É. Svingor, P. Raczky, F. Horváth, I. Futó, L. 1994 Contribution to the 14C Based Absolute Chronol- Bartosiewicz and M. Molnár ogy of the Early and Middle Neolithic Tisza Region. Jósa 1998 Radiocarbon Chronology of the Neolithic and András Múzeum Évkönyve (Nyíregyháza) 36:111-133. Time Span of Tell Settlements in Eastern Hungary Based on Calibrated Radiocarbon Dates. In Archaeometrical Jochim, M. A. Research in Hungary II., edited by L. Költö and L. Bar- 1976 Hunter-Gatherer Subsistence and Settlement: A Predic- tosiewicz, pp. 61-69. Hungarian National Museum, tive Model. Studies in Archaeology. Academic Press, New Budapest. York.

Holliday, T. W. Kalicz, N. 1998 The Ecological Context of Trapping among 1978 Früh- und spätneolithische Funde in der Recent Hunter-Gatherers: Implications for Subsistence in Gemarkung des Ortes Lánycsók (Vorbericht). Janus Panno- Terminal Pleistocene Europe. Current Anthropology nius Múzeum Évkönyve (Pécs) 22 (1977):137-158. 39(5):711-720. 1979 Ausgrabungen: Becsehely. Mitteilungen des Archäolo-

Horváth, A. gischen Instituts der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 1983a Kunadacs-Községi Temetô. Régészeti Füzetek (Budapest) 8/9:119-120. (Budapest) 36:19.

193 Student Conference 2004

1980 Neuer Forschungen über die Entstehung des 1975a A Dél-dunántuli Neolithikum Kutatásának Neolithikums in Ungarn. In Problèmes de la néolithisation Fontosabb Kérdései. Somogy Megyei Múzeumi Közlemények dans certaines régions de l`Europe, edited by J. K. Kozlowski (Kaposvár) 2:253-258. and J. Machnik, pp. 97-122, Wroclaw-Warszawa-Kraków- 1975b Medina. Régészeti Füzetek (Budapest) 28 (Az 1974 év Gdansk. régésteti kutataásai):15-16. 1983 Die Körös-Starcevo-Kulturen und ihre Beziehun- 1976 Medina-Margitsziget Ausgrabungen. Mitteilungen gen zur Linearbandkeramik. Nachrichten aus Niedersachsen des Archäologischen Instituts der Ungarischen Akademie der Urgeschichte 52:91-130. Wissenschaften (Budapest) 6:148. 1988 A Termelôgazdálkodás Kezdetei a Dunántúlon - Neoli- 1977 Die Linienbandkeramik in der Großen Ungarischen tikum. Doktori Értekezés - unpublished Doctoral Disserta- Tiefebene. Studia Archaeologica, Budapest. tion.

1990 Frühneolithische Siedlungsfunde aus Südwestungarn. Kalicz, N. and P. Raczky Inventaria Praehistorica Hungariae 4. Magyar Nemzeti 1981 Siedlung der Körös-Kultur in Szolnok-Szanda. Múzeum - Hungarian National Museum, Budapest. Mitteilungen des Archäologischen Instituts der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Budapest) 10/11 (1980- 1993 The Early Phases of the Neolithic in Western 1981):14-24 and 329-341. Hungary (Transdanubia). Porocilo Raziskovanju Paleolita, Neolita in Eneolita v Sloveniji (Ljubljana) 21:85-135. Kalicz, N., Z. M. Virág and K. T. Biró 1994 A Dunántúli (Közép-Európai) Vonaldíszes Kerámia 1998 The Northern Periphery of the Early Neolithic Legidôsebb Leletei és a Korai Vinca Kultúra. In A Kôkortól Starcevo Culture in South-Western Hunngary: A Case a Középkorig, edited by G. Lörinczy, pp. 67-84, Szeged. Study of an Excavation at Lake Balaton. Documenta Praehis- torica 25:151-187. 1995 Die älteste transdanubiche (mitteleuropäische) Lienenbandkeramik: Aspekte zu Ursprung, Chronologie un Kalicz-Schreiber, R. and N. Kalicz Beziehungen. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hun- 1992 Die erste frühneolithische Fundstelle in Budapest. garicae (Budapest) 47:23-59. Balcanica 23:47-76.

Kalicz, N., K. T. Biró and Z. M. Virág Kelly, R. L. 2002 Vörs, Máriaasszony-sziget. In Régészeti Kutatások 1995 The Foraging Spectrum: Diversity in Hunter-Gatherer Magyarországon 1999 -Archaeological Investigation in Hungary Lifeways. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D. C. 1999, pp. 15-26. Kulturális Örökségvédelmi Hivatal és Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum, Budapest. Kertész, R. 1991 Preliminary Report on the Research of Early Kalicz, N. and R. Kalicz-Schreiber Holocene Period in the NW Part of Great Hungarian 2001 Die Verbreitungsgrenze der frühneolithischen Kul- Plain. FHNMM 16:29-44. turen in Transdanubien (Westungarn). Preistoria Alpina (Trento) 37:25-44. 1993 Data to the Mesolithic of the . - Adatok a Nagyalföld Mezolititkumához. Tisicum Kalicz, N. and J. Makkay 8:81-104. 1972a Probleme des frühen Neolithikums der Nördlichen 1994 Late Mesolithic Chipped Stone Industry from the Tiefebene. Alba Regia (Székesfehérvár) 12:77-92. Site Jásztelek I (Hungary). - Késô Mezolit Pattintott Kôi- 1972b Südliche Einflüsse im frühen und mittleren par Jásztelek I lelôhelyröl. In A Kôkortól a Középkorig, edited Neolithikum Transdanubiens. Alba Regia (Székesfehérvár) by G. Lörinczy, pp. 23-44, Szeged. 12:93-105. 194 Mr. William J. Eichmann. Mesolithic Hunter-Gatherers

1995 Elôzetes Jelentés Jászberény IV Mezolit Lelôhely Kmoch, L. Kôiparáról. In Tanulmányok és Közlemények, edited by Z. 1966 Eine Mesolithstation auf dem Bisamberg bei Wien. Ujváry, pp. 15-25, Debrecen and Szolnok. Archaeologia Austriaca (Wein) 40:13-24. Kordos, L. and Á. Ringer 1996a Megjegyezések a Észak-Alföldi Mezolit Ipar Elter- 1991 A Magyarországi Felsô-Pleisztocén Arvicolidae- jedéséhez és Kronológiájához. Múzeumi Levelek (Szolnok) Sztratigáfiájának Klimato- és Archeosztratigráfiai Korrelá- 75(1):11-32. ciója. A Magyar Állami Földtani Intézet Jelentései 1989:523- 1996b The Mesolithic in the Great Hungarian Plain: A 534. Survey of the Evidence. In At the Fringes of Three Worlds: Hunter-Gatherers and Farmers in the Middle Tisza Valley, Kosse, K. edited by L. Tálas, pp. 5-34. Damjanich Museum Press, 1979 Settlement Ecology of the Early and Middle Neolithic Szolnok. Körös and Linear Pottery Cultures in Hungary 64. BAR Inter- national Series, Oxford. 1996c A New Site of the Northern Hungarian Plain Mesolithic Industry in the Jászság Area (Jászberény IV). Kozlowski, J. K. Tisicum (Szolnok) 9:27-44. 1973 The Problem of the So-Called Danubian Mesolithic. In The Mesolithic in Europe: Papers Read at the 2001 Kökori Vadászok. - Mesolithic Hunters. Jász International Archaeological Symposium on the Mesolithic in Múzeum Évkönyv 1975-2000:37-64. Europe, Warsaw, May, 7 - 12, 1973, edited by S. K. 2002 Mesolithic Hunter-Gatherers in the Northwestern Kozlowski, pp. 315 - 330. Warsaw University Press, War- Part of the Great Hungarian Plain. Praehistoria 3:281-304. saw.

1982a La Neolithisation de la zone Balkano-Danubienne Kertész, R. and P. Sümegi du point de vue des industries lithiques. In Origin of the 1999 Teóriák, Kritika És Egy Modell: Miért Állt Meg A Chipped Stone Industries of the Early Farming Cultures in Körös-Starcevo Kultúra Terjedése A Kárpát-Medence Cen- Balkans, edited by J. K. Kozlowski, pp. 132-170. vol. 33. trumában? Tisicum: A Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok Megyei Prace Archeologiczne, Kraków/Warsaw. Múzeumok Évkönyve (Szolnok) XI:9-23. 1982b Origin of the Chipped Stone Industries of the Early 2001 Theories, Critiques and a Model: Why Did the Farming Cultures in Balkans. NakO¤¤. Uniwersytetu Jagiel- Expansion of the Körös-Starcevo Culture Stop in the Cen- lo*nskiego, Warszawa. tre of the Carpathian Basin? In From the Mesolithic to the Neolithic: Proceedings of the International Archaeological Confer- 1989 The Neolithization of South-East European - An ence held in the Damjanich Museum of Szolnok, September 22- Alternative Approach. In Neolithic of Southeastern Europe and 27, 1996, edited by R. Kertész and J. Makkay, pp. 225-246. Its Near Eastern Connections: International Conference 1987 Archaeolingua, Budapest. Szolnok-Szeged, edited by S. Bökönyi, pp. 131-148. Varia Archaeologica Hungarica II. Publicationes Instituti Archae- Klíma, B. ologici Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae Budapestini, 1953 Nové Mesolitické Nálezy na jizˇní Morave. Archaeo- Budapest. logické Rozhledy (Praha) 5:297-302. Kozlowski, J. K. and S. K. Kozlowski 1970 Sˇtiípaná Kamenná Industie z Mikulcic. Památky 1979 Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic in Europe: Taxonomy Archeologické 61(1):216-224. and Palaeohistory. Polish Academy of Science, Krakow Branch, Works of the Archaeological Commission Nr. 18. Polish Academy of Science, Wroclaw.

195 Student Conference 2004

Kozlowski, J. K., S. K. Kozlowski and I. Radovanovic Banat. Acta Musei Napocensis (Cluj) 6:3-26. 1994 Meso- and Neolithic Sequence from the Odmut Cave 1979 Neoliticul Banatului. BMN IV. ????, Cluj-Napoca. (Montenegro). Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, Warszawa. Leitner, W. 1980 Die Mesolithstation von Burgschleinitz (NÖ). In Kozlowski, S. K. Festschrift zur 50-jahrfeier des Höbarth-Museums, pp.??-?? 83 1975 Cultural Differentiation of Europe from 10th to 5th pages total, Horn. Millennium B.C. Warsaw University Press, Warsaw. 1984 Zum Stand der Mesolithforschung in Österreich. 1980 Bemerkungen zum Mesolithikum in der Tsche- Preistoria Alpina (Trento) 19:75-82. choslowakei und in Österreich. Veröffentlichungen des Muse- ums für Ur- und Frühgeschichte (Potsdam) 14-15:301-308. Lekovic, V. 1984 Carte de la Culture de Beuron-Coincy (Beu- 1985 The Starcevo Mortuary Practices - New Perspec- ronien). Archaeologia Interregionalis (Warsaw):193-206. tives. Godisˇnjak Sarajevo 23(21):157-172.

1985 A Survey of Early Holocene Cultures of the West- 1995 Neolithic Settlements. In Archaeological Investiga- ern Part of the Russian Plain. In The Mesolithic in Europe: tions along the Highway Route in Srem, edited by Z. Vaja, pp. Papers Presented at the Third International Symposium, Edin- 25-44, Novi Sad. burgh 1985, edited by C. J. Bonsall, pp. 424 - 441. John Donald Publishers, Edinburgh. Lengyel, G. 2004 Késô-Paleolit Telep Miskolc Határában. Momus 2001 Eco-Cultural/Stylistic Zonation of the Mesolith- (Debrecen) II Õskoros Kutatók II Összejövetelének Konfer- ic/Epipaleolithic in Central Europe. In From the Mesolithic enciakötete - Debrecen, 2000. November 6-8:11-20. to the Neolithic: Proceedings of the International Archaeological Conference held in the Damjanich Museum of Szolnok, Septem- Lenneis, E. ber 22-27, 1996, edited by R. Kertész and J. Makkay, pp. 2000 Hausformen der Mitteleuropäiscen Linearband- 261-282. Archaeolingua, Budapest. keramik und des balkanischen Früneolithikums im Vergle- ich. In Karanovo III. Beiträge zum Neolithikum in Südosteu- Krolopp, E. and P. Sümegi ropa, edited by S. Hiller and V. Nikolov, pp. 383-388, Wein. 1995 Palaeoecological Reconstruction of the Late Pleis- tocene, Based on Loess Malacofauna in Hungary. GeoJour- Makkay, J. nal 26:213-222. 1970 A Kôkor és Rézkor Fejér Megyében. In Fejér Megye Története az Õskortól a Honfoglalásig, edited by J. Fitz, Kurucz, K. pp. 9-52. vol. Fejér Megye Története I, Székesfehérvár. 1989 A Nyíri Mezôség Neolitikuma 28. Jósa András Múzeum Kiadványai, Nyíregyháza. 1975 A Bicskei Neolithikus Telepe és Temetô - Die neolithis- che Siedlung und das Gräberfeld in Bicske. Az István Király Kutzián, I. Múzeum Közleményei D sorozat No. 104. 1944 A Körös Kultúra. In Dissertationes Pannonicae. Ser. 1978 Excavations at Bicske: I. The Early Neolithic - II, No. 23, Budapest. The Earliest Linear Band Ceramic. Alba Regia (Székesfe- 1947 The Körös Culture. In Dissertationes Pannonicae. hérvár) 16:9-60. Ser. II, No. 23, Budapest. 1982 A Magyarországi Neolitikum Kutatásának Új Ered- ményei, Budapest. Lazarovici, G. 1969 Cultura Starcevo-Cri - Die Starcevo-Cri-Kultur in

196 Mr. William J. Eichmann. Mesolithic Hunter-Gatherers

Marosi, A. Minichreiter, K. 1935 Õskôkori Szigony Merítôpusztáról. Székesfehervári 1992 Starcevacka Kultura u Sjevernoj Hrvatkoj - The Szemle 5:75-76. Starcevo Culture in Northern Croatia. Dizertacije I Mono- grafije 1. 1 vols, Zagreb. 1936a Kormeghatározó Adatok a Csór-Merítôpusztai Õskori Csontszigonyhoz. Székesfehervári Szemle 6:40-42. Nemeskéri, J. 1936b A Székesfehérvári Múzeum Õskori Csontszigonya. 1948 A Mezolithikus Kultúra Új Nyomai Magyarorszá- Archaeologiai Értesítô (Budapest) 54:83-85. gon. Természettudomány 3:221-222.

Marton, T. Nicolaescu-Plopsor, C. S. and I. Pop 2003 Mezolitikum A Dél-Dunántúlon - A Somogyi 1959 Cercetarile si sapaturile paleolitice de la Cremenea Leletek Újraértékelése. Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve si împrejurimi. Materiale si Cercetari Arheologice 6:51-56. (Szeged) 9:39-48. Özdogan, M. Mateiciucová, I. 1989 Neolithic Cultures of Northwestern Turkey: A 2001 Silexartefakte und Gerölle im Gräberfeld der lin- General Appraisal of the Evidence and Some Considera- earbandkeramischen Kultur in Vedrovice in Mähren. Preis- tions. In Neolithic of Southeastern Europe and Its Near Eastern toria Alpina 37:81-107. Connections: International Conference 1987 Szolnok-Szeged, edited by S. Bökönyi, pp. 201-216. Varia Archaeologica 2002 Silexartefakte der ältesten und älteren LBK aus Hungarica II. Publicationes Instituti Archaeologici Acade- Brunn am Gebirge, Niederösterreich. (Vorbericht). Antaeus miae Scientiarum Hungaricae Budapestini, Budapest. (Budapest) 25:169-187. 2000 The Appearance of Early Neolithic Cultures in Mateiciuvová, I. Northwestern Turkey: Some Problems. In Karanovo III. 2001 Silexindustrie in der ältesten Linearbandkeramik- Beiträge zum Neolithikum in Südosteuropa, edited by S. Hiller Kultur in Mähren und Niederösterreich auf der Basis der and V. Nikolov, pp. 165-170, Wein. Silexindustrie des Lokalmesolithikums. In From the Mesolithic to the Neolithic: Proceedings of the International Paunescu, A. Archaeological Conference held in the Damjanich Museum of 1964 Cu privire la perioda de sfîrsit a epipaleoliticului în Szolnok, September 22-27, 1996, edited by R. Kertész and J. nord-vestul si nord-estul Romîniei si unele persistente ale Makkay, pp. 283-300. Archaeolingua, Budapest. lui în neoliticul. Studii si Cercetari de Istorie Veche (Bucuresti) 15:321-336. Matskevoî, L. G. 1987 Mezolit Predkarpatya, zapadnogo Podlolya i 1970 Evolutia Uneltelor si Armelor de Piatra Cioplita Zakarpatya (Cyrilic Russian). In Arkheologiya Prikaratya, Descoperite pe Teritoriul Romaniei, Bucuresti. Volyni i Zakapatya (Kamennyî Vek), pp. 75-89, Kiev. Perlès, C. 1991 Mezolit Zapada Ukrainy (Cyrilic Russian), Kiev. 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece. Cambridge World Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Mészáros, G. 1948 A Vázsonyi-Medence Mezolit És Neolitkori Települései. Prosˇek, F. Doktori Értekezés, Debreceni Tudomány Egyetem. Vida 1959 Mesolitická Obsidiánova Industrie ze Stanice Barca András Könyvnyomdája: Veszprém. I. Archaeologické Royhledy (Praha) 11:145-148.

197 Student Conference 2004

Pusztai, R. 2000 Tracing European Founder Lineages in the Near- 1957 Mezolitikus Leletek Somogyból. Janus Pannonius Eastern Mitochondrial Gene Pool. The American Journal of Múzeum Évkönyve (Pécs):96-105. Human Genetics 67:1251-1276.

Quitta, H. Ringer, Á. 1960 Zur Frage der ältesten Bandkeramik in Mitteleu- 1982 Egy Levéleszközös Formakör Szórvány Leletei a Bükk ropa. Praehistorische Zeitschrift (Berlin-New York) 38:1-38 and Hegység Területén. Doktori Értekezés. 153-188. 1983 Bábonyien, eine mittelpaläolithische Blattwerkzeug- 1964 Zur Herkunft des frühen Neolithikums in Mit- industrie in Nordost-Ungarn. Dissertationes Archaeologicae teleuropa. Varia Archaeologica 16:14-24. Series II. No. 11, Budapest.

1971 Der Balkan als Mittler zwischen Vorderem Orient 1990 Le Szélétien dans le Bükk en Hongrie. Chronolo- und Europa. In Evolution und Revolution im Alten Orient und gie, Origine et Transition vers le Paléolithiqe Spérieur. In Europa - Das Neolithikum als historische Erscheinung, edited Paléolithique Moyen Récent et Paléolithique Supérieur Ancien en by F. Schlette, pp. 36-63, Berlin. Europe. Actes du Colloque International de Nemours, 9-11 Mai 1988. Mémoires du Musée de Préhistoire d’Ile-de-France 3, Quitta, H. and G. Kohl edited by C. Farizy, pp. 107-109. 1969 Neue Radiocarbondaten zum Neolithikum und zur 1991 Miskolc Rózsás-Hegy. Régészeti Füzetek (Budapest) frühen Bronzezeit Südosteuropas und der Sowjetunion. ser. 1 No. 42:19. Zeitschrift für Archäologie (Berlin) 3:223-225. 2000 Le Complexe Techno-typologique du Bábonyien-

Raczky, P. Szélétien de la Hongrie de Nord-Est et le Yabroudien du 1982 Újkôkor. In Szolnok Megye a Népek Országútján, Levant. In Toward Modern Humans: Yabrudian and Mico- edited by P. Raczky, pp. 8-23, 92-99, Szolnok. quian, 400-500 kyears ago, edited by A. Ronen and M. Weinstein-Evron, pp. 181-187. British Archaeological

Radovanovic, I. Reports International Series 850, Oxford. 1996 The . Archaeological Series 11. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor. 2001 A Bükk és Cserehát a Felsô-Paleolitikumban. In Emberelôdök Nyomában. Az Õskor Emlékei Északkelet-Mag-

Richards, M. yarországon, edited by G. Gyenis, A. Hevesi, L. Kordos, Z. 2003 The Neolithic Transition in Europe: Archaeologi- Mester, Á. Ringer and V. T. Dobosi, pp. 93-101, Miskolc. cal Models and Genetic Evidence. Documenta Praehistorica 15:159-167. Ringer, Á. and B. Adams 2000 Sajóbábony-Méhésztetô, Eponymous Site of the

Richards, M., V. Macaulay, E. Hickey, E. Vega, B. Sykes, V. Middle Palaeolithic Bábonyian Industry: Microwear Studies Guida, C. Rengo, D. Sellitto, F. Cruciani, T. Kivisild, R. Made on Tools Found at the Site during the 1997 Excava- Villems, M. Thomas, S. Rychkov, O. Rychkov, Y. Rychkov, tion. Praehistoria 1:117-128. M. Golge, D. Dimitrov, E. Hill, D. Bradley, V. Romano, F. Cali, G. Vona, A. Demaine, S. Papiha, C. Triantaphyllidis, Ringer, Á., L. Kordos and E. Krolopp G. Stefanescu, J. Hatina, M. Belledi, A. Di Rienznzo, A. 1995 Le Complexe Bábonyien-Szélétien en Hongrie du Novelletto, A. Oppenhiem, S. Nørby, N. Al-Zaheri, S. San- Nord-Est dans son Cadre Chronologique et Environ- tachiara-Benerecetti, R. Scozzari, A. Torroni and H.-J. Ban- nemental. In Actes dur Colloque de Miskolc, 10-15 Septembre delt 1991. Paléo Supplément No. 1, pp. 27-30.

198 Mr. William J. Eichmann. Mesolithic Hunter-Gatherers

Roberts, N. 1984 Új Eredmények Északkelet Magyarország Pale- 1989 The Holocene. An Environmental History. olitkutatásában. Doctoral Thesis. Blackwell Press, Oxford. 1986 Mittelpaläolithisches Atelier am Avasberg bei Miskolc. In Urzeitliche und frühhistorische Besiedlung Rozsnyói, M. der Ostslowakei in Bezug zu den Nachbargebieten, pp. 1963 Mezolit-gyanús Szórványleletek a Bükk 49-55, Nitra. Hegység Északnyugati Részén. Heves Megyei Múzeumok Közleményei (Eger) 1963(1):69-80. 1990 Population Fluctuations in the Carpathian Basin from 50 to 15 Thousand Years BP. Acta Archae-

Schubert, H. ologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae (Budapest) 1999 Die bemalte Keramik des Frühneolithikums in 42:13-19. Südosteuropa, Italien und Westanatolien, Rahden/Westf. 1991 Procurement and Distribution of Raw Mate- rials in the Palaeolithic of North-East Hungary. Schweizer, A. Études et Recherches Archéologiques de l’Université de 2001 Archäopalynologische Untersuchungen zur Liége 43:28-44. Neolithisierung der nördlichen Wetterau/Hessen. Disser- tationes Botanicae 350. Cramer, Berlin/Stuttgart. Simán, K. and P. Csorba 1993 Korlát-Ravaszlyuk-tetô Régészeti Lelôhely Selmeczi, L. Geomorfológiai és Talajtani Vizsgálata. Mérnökgeoló- 1969 Das Wohnhaus der Körös-gruppe von Tisza- giai Szemle 41:91-111. jenô. Neuere Haustypen des Frühneolithikums. Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve (Szeged) 2:17-22. Simon, K. H. 1996 Ein neuer Fundort der Starcevo-Kultur bei Sherratt, A. Gellénháza (Kom Zala, Ungarn) und seine südlichen 1997a The Development of Neolithic and Copper Beziehungen. In The Vinca Culture, Its Role and Cul- Age Settlement in the Great Hungarian Plain: I: The tural Connections: International Symposium on the Vinca Regional Setting (revised from 1983 version). In Culture Its Role and Cultural Connections - Timisoara, Economy and Society in : Changing Romania, October 1995, edited by F. Drasovean, pp. Perspectives, edited by A. Sherratt, pp. 270-292. 59-92. Museum Banaticum Temesiense: Bibliotheca Princeton University Press, Princeton. Historica et Archaeoloca Banatica, Timisoara.

1997b The Development of Neolithic and Copper 2001 Die neolithischen Funde des Objektes Age Settlement in the Great Hungarian Plain: II: Site 103/96 von Gellénháza-Városrét (Komitat Zala). Survey and Settlement Dynamics (revised from 1984 Zalai Múzeum (Zalaegerszeg) 10:19-43. version). In Economy and Society in Prehistoric Europe: Changing Perspectives, edited by A. Sherratt, pp. 293- Smith, B. D. 319. Princeton University Press, Princeton. 2001 Low-Level Food Production. Journal of Archaeological Research 9(1):1-43. Simán, K. 1978 Északkelet Magyarország Bizonytalan Korú Stadler, P. Paleolit Leletei (Miskolc, Avas). In manuscript, 1995 Ein Beitrag zur Absolutchronologie des Budapest. Neolithikums aufgrund der 14-C Daten in Österre-

1979 Kovabánya az Avason. Herman Ottó Múzeum ich. In Jungsteinzeit im Osten Österreichs, edited by E. Évkönyve (Miskolc) 1979:87-102. Lenneis, C. Neugebauer-Maresch and E. Ruttkay,

199 Student Conference 2004

pp. 210-224. vol. 102/103/104/105. Verlag Niederösterre- Szathmáry, L. ichisches Pressehaus, St. Pölten-Wein. 1988 The Boreal (Mesolithic) Peopling in the Carpathi- an Basin: The Role of the Peripheries. Folia Historico Natu- Stäuble, H. ralia Musei Matraensis (Gyöngyös) 13:47-60. 1995 Radiocarbon Date of the Earliest Neoltihc in Cen- tral Europe. Radiocarbon 37(2):227-237. Szekeres, L. 1967 Ludasˇ-Budzˇak, Ranoneolitsko Nasele. AP 9:9-12. Sümegi, P. 1996 Comparative Paleoecological Reconstruction and Strati- Testart, A. graphical Valuation of NE Hungarian Loess Region (in Hungar- 1982 The Significance of Food Storage among Hunter- ian). unpublished Ph. D. Thesis. Gatherers: Residence Patterns, Population Densities, and Social Inequalities. Current Anthropology 23:523-537. 2003a Early Neolithic Man and Riparian Environment in the Carpathian Basin. In Morgenrot der Kulturen: Frühe Thissen, L. Etappen der Menschheitsgeschichte in Mittel- und Südosteuropa - 2000a A Chronological Framework for the Neolithisation Festschrift für Nándor Kalicz zum 75. Geburtstag, edited by E. of the Southern Balkans. In Karanovo III. Beiträge zum Jerem and P. Raczky, pp. 53-60. Archaeolingua, Budapest. Neolithikum in Südosteuropa, edited by V. Nikolov, pp. 193- 2003b New Chronological and Malacological Data from 212, Wein. the Quaternary of the Sárrét Area, Transdanubia, Hungary. Acta Geologica Hungarica (Budapest) 46(4):371-390. 2000b Early Village Communities in Anatolia and the Balka- ns, 6500-5500 cal BC: Studies in Chronology and Culture Con- 2004 Preneolitizáció - Egy Kárpát-Medencei Késô tact. Unpublished Ph. D. thesis. Mezolitikum Során Bekövetkezett Életmódbeli Változás Környezettörténeti Rekonstrukciója. Momus (Debrecen) II Torma, I. Õskoros Kutatók II Összejövetelének Konferenciakötete - 1963 A Kapos- és Koppány-völgy Ôskori Települései. Debrecen, 2000. November 6-8:21-32. Egyetem Szakdolgozat.

Sümegi, P., R. Kertész and E. Hertelendi Törôcsik, Z. 2002 Environmental Change and Human Adaptation in 1991 A Dunántúli Vonaldíszes Kerámia Kultúrája “Tapolcai the Carpathian Basin at the Late Glacial/Postglacial Transi- Csoportjának” Balaton Környéki Lelôhelyei 1. Bibliotheca tion. In Archaeometry 98: Proceeding of the 31st Symposium Musei Tapolcensis, Tapolca. Budapest, April 26-May 3 1998, edited by E. Jerem and K. T. Biró, pp. 171-177. vol. 1. British Archaeological Reports Trigger, B. G. International Series, Oxford. 1989 A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Sümegi, P., E. Krolopp and E. Rudner 2002 Negyedidôszak Végi Õskörnyezeti Változások a Trogmayer, O. Kárpát-medencében Térben és Idôben - Late Quaternary 1966 Ein Neolithisches Hausmodellfragment von Environmental Changes in the Carpathian Basin in Space Röszke. Acta Antiqua et Archaeologica (Szeged) 10:11-26. and Time. Földtani Közlöny (Budapest) 132:5-22.

Valoch, K. Svoboda, J. and K. Simán 1963 Ein mittelsteinzeitlicher Vohnplatz bei Smolín in 1989 the Middle-Upper Paleolithic Transition in South- Südmähren. Quartär 14:105-114. eastern Central Europe (Czechoslovakia and Hungary. Journal of World Prehistory 3(283-322).

200 Mr. William J. Eichmann. Mesolithic Hunter-Gatherers

1975 Eine endpaläolithische Industrie von Pribice (Bez. Waters, M. R. Breclav) in Südmähren. CMM 60:45-78. 1992 Principles of Geoarchaeology: A North American Per- spective. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 1978 Die endpaläolithische Siedlung in Smolín. Studie Archeologického Ústavu Ceskoslovenské Akademie Ved v Weiser, W. Brne 6/3, Praha. 1980 Das frühe Mesolithikum von Horn-Galgenberg. In Festschrift zur 50-jahrfeier de Höbarth-Museums, pp.??-?? 73 1985 The Mesolithic site of Smolín, South Moravia. In pages, Horn. The Mesolithic in Europe, edited by C. Bonsall, pp. 461-470. John Donald Publishers, Edinburgh. Whittle, A. 1990 Radiocarbon Dating of the : Vavilov, N. I. The Contribution of Cereal and Bone Samples. Antiquity 1926 Studies on the Origin of Cultivated Plants. Institut 64:297-302. Botanique Applique et d’Amelioration des Plantes, Leningrad. 1996 Europe in the Neolithic - The Creation of New Worlds. Cambridge World Archaeology. Cambridge University Vértes, L. Press, Cambridge. 1962 Ausgrabungen in Szekszárd Palánk und die archäologischen Funde. Swiatowit 24:159-202. 2001 From Mobility to Sedentism: Change by Degrees. 1965 Az Õskôkor és az Átmeneti Kôkor Emlékei Mag- In From the Mesolithic to the Neolithic: Proceedings of the Inter- yarországon, Budapest. national Archaeological Conference held in the Damjanich Muse- um of Szolnok, September 22-27, 1996, edited by R. Kertész Virág, Z. M. and J. Makkay, pp. 447-461. Archaeolingua, Budapest. 1992 Újkôkori és Középsô Rézkori Telepnyomok az M0 Whittle, A., L. Bartosiewicz, D. Boric, P. Pettitt and M. Autópalya Szigetszentmiklósi Szakaszánál. In Régészeti Richards Kutatások az M0 Autoópalya nyomvonalán, edited by P. 2002 In the Beginning: New Radiocarbon Dates for the Havasi and L. Selmeczi, pp. 15-60, Budapest. Early Neolithic in Northern Serbia and South-east Hun- gary. Antaeus (Budapest) 25:63-118. Virág, Z. M. and N. Kalicz 2001 Neuere Sidlungsfunde der Frühneolithischen Wiessner, P. Starcevo-kultur aus Südwestungarn. In Problems of the Stone 1982 Beyond Willow Smoke and Dog’s Tails: A Com- Age in the Old World - Jubilee Book Dedicated to Professor ment on Binford’s Analysis of Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Janusz Kozlowski, pp. 265-279. 2001, Kraków. Systems. American Antiquity 47(1):171-178.

2002 The Vines of Complexity: Egalitarian Structures Vörös, I. and the Institutionalization of Inequality among the Enga. 1989 Madaras-Téglavetô Felsôpleisztocén Emlôs Current Anthropology 43:233-269. Maradványai. Cumania 11:29-43.

1991 Large Mammal Remains from the Upper Palae- Willis, K. J., M. Braun, P. Sümegi and A. Tóth olithic Site at Esztergom-Gyurgyalag. Acta Archaeologica 1997 Does Soil Change Cause Vegetation Change or Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae (Budapest) 43:261-264. Vice-Versa? A Temporal Perspective from Hungary. Ecology 78(740-750). 1993 Animal Remains Campsite from the Upper Pale- olithic Hunters at Jászfelsôszentgyörgy-Szunyogos. Tisicum Willis, K. J., P. Sümegi, M. Braun and A. Tóth (Szolnok) 8:77-79. 1995 The Late Quaternary Environmental History of

201 Bátorliget, N.E. Hungary. Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 2001 Anthropological Structure of the Prehistoric Popu- Palaeogeography 118(25-47). lations Living in the Carpathian Basin in the Neolithic, Copper, Bronze, and Iron Age. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Wobst, H. M. Scientiarum Hungaricae (Budapest) 52(1-3):49-62. 1974 Boundary Conditions for Paleolithic Social Sys- tems: A Simulation Approach. American Antiquity 39:147- Zvelebil, M. 178. 2000 The Social Context of Agricultural Transition in Europe. In Archaeogenetics: DNA and the Population Prehisto- Zoffmann, Z. K. ry of Europe, edited by C. Renfrew and K. Boyle, pp. 57-79. 1978 Anthropological Finds in Lánycsók, Hungary, from McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cam- the Early Neolithic Starcevo Culture. Janus Pannonius bridge. Múzeum Évkönyve (Pécs) 22:157-162. Zvelebil, M. and P. A. Rowley-Conwy 1999 Anthropological Data of the Transdanubian Pre- 1984 The Transition to Farming in : A historic Populations Living in the Neolithic, Copper, Hunter-Gatherer Perspective. Norwegian Archaeological Bronze and the Iron Ages. Savaria: a Vas Megyei Múzeum Review 17(2):104 - 128. Értesítöje () 24(3):33-49.

202