Neolitization from the View of Archeogenetics with the Focus on Central Europe

FILOZOFICKÁ FAKULTA

Neolitization from the view of archeogenetics with the focus on Central Europe

Bakalářská diplomová práce

KRISTÍNA LACOVÁ

Vedoucí práce: Mgr. Peter Tóth, PhD.

Ústav archeolgie a muzeologie Archeologie

Brno 2021

NEOLITIZATION FROM THE VIEW OF ARCHEOGENETICS WITH THE FOCUS ON CENTRAL EUROPE

Bibliografický záznam

Autor: Kristína Lacová Filozofická fakulta Masarykova univerzita Ústav archeolgie a muzeologie Název práce: Neolitization from the view of archeogenetics with the focus on Central Europe Studijní program: FF B-AE Archeologie Studijní obor: Archeologie Vedoucí práce: Mgr. Peter Tóth, PhD. Rok: 2021 Počet stran: 56 Klíčová slova: Neolitization, DNA, migration, first farmers, hunters-gatherers, calibration, summed probability distribution, ideal despotic distribution

2 NEOLITIZATION FROM THE VIEW OF ARCHEOGENETICS WITH THE FOCUS ON CENTRAL EUROPE

Bibliographic record

Author: Kristína Lacová Faculty of Arts Masaryk University Department of Archaeology and Muzeology Title of Thesis: Neolithization from the view of archaeogenetics with the focus on Central Europe Degree Programme: FF B-AE Archaeology Field of Study: FF AE Archaeology Supervisor: Mgr. Peter Tóth, PhD. Year: 2021 Number of Pages: 56 Keywords: Neolitization, DNA, migration, first farmers, hunters-gatherers, calibration, summed probability distribution, ideal despotic distribution

3 NEOLITIZATION FROM THE VIEW OF ARCHEOGENETICS WITH THE FOCUS ON CENTRAL EUROPE

Anotace

V poslednej dobe môžeme badať veľké množstvo nových článkov a publikácii na tému neolitizácie a archeogenetiky. Aj preto je jednym z cieľov práce predstavenie a zosu- marizovanie súčasného stavu bádania a sučasného pohľadu archeogenetiky na vy- brané otázky neolitizácie. V priestore strednej Európy sa začína presadzovať interdis- ciplinárne vedecké chápanie procesov neolitizácie, ktorých prehľad podá aj bakalárska práca. Na skúmané územie sa aplikuje teória ideálnej despotickej distribúcie a pomo- cou C 14 dát sa použije sumárna distribučná krivka, podľa ktorej sa bude sledovať prirodzený populačný nárast a pohyb migrujúcej populácie, o ktoých hovorí aj arche- ogenetika, aj teoretický model.

4 NEOLITIZATION FROM THE VIEW OF ARCHEOGENETICS WITH THE FOCUS ON CENTRAL EUROPE

Abstract

There is a significant amount of the new research papers and publications published, concerning topics of Neolithization and Archaeogenetics. One of the goals of this thesis is going to be an introduction and summarization of the current state of research concerning some of the chosen Neolithization topics. Interdisciplinary view of the Neo- lithization processes is starting to be popular in the research of the Central Europe area. Thesis will attempt to apply the ideal despotic distribution theory using C14 data and summed probability distribution curve to follow the population density and migration trends in the selected area.

5 NEOLITIZATION FROM THE VIEW OF ARCHEOGENETICS WITH THE FOCUS ON CENTRAL EUROPE

Declaration

I hereby declare that this thesis with title Neolitization from the view of archeogenetics with the focus on Central Europe I submit for assessment is entirely my own work and has not been taken from the work of others save to the extent that such work has been cited and acknowledged within the text of my thesis.

Brno June 30, 2021 ...... Kristína Lacová

7 NEOLITIZATION FROM THE VIEW OF ARCHEOGENETICS WITH THE FOCUS ON CENTRAL EUROPE

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my supervisor of the thesis Peter Tóth, for patience and guidance and my dear Karls for support and friendship throughout the studies.

9 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents

List of Figures 13

List of Tables 14

Glossary 15

1 Introduction 17

2 Geographic and chronological determination 18

3 Archaeogenetics 19

4 Methodology 21 4.1 Ideal despotic distribution model ...... 21 4.2 Summed probability distribution ...... 21

5 Source material critique 23

6 Current state of research 24 6.1 Environment ...... 24 6.2 Mobility ...... 25 6.3 Economy ...... 27 6.4 Farming ...... 28 6.5 Domestication ...... 29 6.6 Diseases ...... 30 6.7 Interactions among first farmers and hunters-gatherers ...... 31

7 Results 33

8 Discussion 41

9 Conclusion 43

10 Bibliography 45

Appendix A Database 53

11 LIST OF FIGURES

List of Figures

Figure 1 ...... 22 Figure 2 ...... 34 Figure 3 ...... 35 Figure 4 ...... 35 Figure 5 ...... 36 Figure 6 ...... 37 Figure 7 ...... 38 Figure 8 ...... 39 Figure 9 ...... 39 Figure 10 ...... 40

13 LIST OF TABLES

List of Tables

Table 1 ...... 22

14 GLOSSARY

Glossary

LBK – Linearbandkeramik

15 INTRODUCTION

1 Introduction

We can argue that the expansion of the new way of life (not only) through the observed area, was led by the need of acquiring new patches of land and that might have been for numerous reasons. In the last couple of years, the process of neolithization is viewed from new perspectives. One of those is the perspective of archaeogenetic studies. With the new settlements located on the low-lying loess soils along the river valleys, however strategic location wise they might sooner or later have been, comes many disadvantages. One of them is greater dependance on land. With the other arguments like climate, or the availability of resources on mind, we can discuss that by settling and intentional farming and do- mesticating plants and animals, a group of people might have gained a demographic advantage which led others to follow their example. Since fertility of the land might be considered a non-renewable resource, it is able to contain only certain amount of people occupying it. On the other hand, with the settling came significant population increase. Therefore, a need for “expanding” emerges. With the expansion of early agricultural communities, material culture, new technologies and genes make their way to other parts of the world. This, however, is not to be understood as the main reason of the Neolithic expansion. There are other social and economic causes in the mix, like the stability of the climate or excess of the resources which led to sedentary way of life and then expansion. Archaeology research in the last years went through a revolution that can be to some extent contributed to archaeogenetics. The results of archaeogenetic studies yield fun- damentally different picture of the nature of neolithization as previous analyzing of archaeology material. The use of DNA in modern research contributed to the study of ancient populations. It has allowed a new perspective on the origins, evolution and spread of population as well as diseases over time. With the newfound focus on this field, it keeps expanding and evolving. The use of summed probability and radiocarbon data became popular as well. The availability of calibrating programs and greater amount of data encouraged the use of this method amongst researchers. This bachelor’s thesis is going to introduce various aspects of neolithization, specifically environment, economy, mobility, and interactions because of their popularity in archaeogenetic research today. At the same time, it is going to test thee the archaeogenetic claim of the population increase during the Neolithic in the Central Europe area through summed probability distribution curve of radiocarbon data.

17 GEOGRAPHIC AND CHRONOLOGICAL DETERMINATION

2 Geographic and chronological determination

Agriculture spread through Balkan to south border of Carpathian basin around 8 400 BP, where the spread stopped for another 400-500 years. After that, the expansion emerged again in the form of LBK culture (Bánffy – Sümegi 2012). The areas of Trans- danubia and Carpathian basin are gaining more and more research traction during recent years. This bachelor’s thesis is focused on the area of today’s Czech Republic, Hun- gary, Slovakia, and Lower Austria. The area was chosen based on the occurrence of the LBK culture. Chronologically, the thesis will follow a span between Mesolithic and early Neolithic (specifically LBK culture), approximately from 8 000 to 4 600 BC, with the concentration on the phenomena called the Neolithization. Based on the archaeological research of material culture found on the excavation sites of these early farming settlements, researchers recognized several groups of “cultural” carriers. One of them being LBK culture and Starčevo culture. There are multiple theories about the relation- ship of these cultures and their origins. One of them being the Indigenist theory or the Migrationist theory (Nikitin - Stadler et al 2019, 3).

18 ARCHAEOGENETICS

3 Archaeogenetics

In order to use archaeogenetic studies for the research of neolithization we need to explain a basic genetics principles and methods that can be used in analyzing prehistoric data. To explain the basic mechanics very briefly, the set of genetic code or information that we inherit from our parents is called genome. Geneticists found out that there are multiple ways how the genetic data can be viewed and studied. For example, they can follow Y-chromosomes or mitochondrial DNA, or autosomes. Other research questions that were studied include the one of how this data should be approached, what methods to use for the most accurate results and, concerning this bachelor’s thesis subject matters, how can we connect them with the migration history. To zoom in on the latter, three main approaches can be discussed. First one being “Phylogeo- graphic analysis” (Avise et al. 1987; Underhill – Kivisild 2007). This is usually used with mitochondrial DNA or Y-chromosome data and focuses on the occasional differences between their DNA sequences (Thomas-Kivisild-Chikhi-Burger 2013, 146). These differences are mutations that occurred randomly at some point in the past. By studying the density of these mutations in DNA we can determine their age, meaning how long is it until they shared the same ancestor and hence tracing key events that occurred (Reich 2018, 30). Mutations tell us how closely two people are related. Scientists can create genealogical trees by connecting the mutations to ancient populations and regions they occupied. From this, the interpretation of the distribution of mutations to other regions can be seen as a migration event. There are multiple issues with this approach. The main one being the inaccuracy of the genealogical tree. The patterns that are seen as specific aspect connected to population´s history may just very well have been a random coincidental occurrence (Thomas-Kivisild-Chikhi-Burger 2013, 147). The second method is interpreting of summary patterns (Cavalli-Sfonza et al. 1994; Rogers – Harpending 1992; Edmonds et al. 2004). Descriptive statistics such as analyzing principal components or distribution of differences between samples of DNA sequences. They can be a convenient proxy for migration, population size etc. but are also inaccurate because of the randomness of inheritance and mutation patterns. The same genetic pattern can be found in different populations autonomously (Thomas- Kivisild-Chikhi-Burger 2013, 147). The third is explicit modeling, which is probably the safest one (Beaumont et al. 2002; Nielsen – Beaumont 2009). It uses analytical or com- puter simulation results to statistically compare different population history scenarios. One of the examples can be a retrospective model of gene genealogies, where the most likely historical scenarios are those under which data are most probable. But, it is usually difficult to interpret since there are an infinite number of historical scenarios that can be tested (Thomas-Kivisild-Chikhi-Burger 2013, 147). Fist two methods appear to be more readable and probably more attractive for archaeology interpretations but the

19 ARCHAEOGENETICS third one, even though more challenging in a technical way is probably the best way forward (Thomas-Kivisild-Chikhi-Burger 2013, 148).

20 METHODOLOGY

4 Methodology

To prove significant population increase we see in the research of prehistoric DNA during the observed period of time, the thesis uses a theory of ideal despotic distribution (Shennan 2018) and demonstrates it through summed probability distribution of calibrated radiocarbon (C14). The data were collected from existing databases (Barta et al, 2013), and publications (Kuča-Kovar 2012, Jakucs et al. 2016) and the catalogue of literature focused on the archaeogenetic research in Central Europe was critically eval- uated.

4.1 Ideal despotic distribution model

The theory about the strategy of Neolithic mobility by Stephan Shennan (2009, 2013) says that the spread of population is fueled by the need of acquiring new land but takes territoriality into consideration. As mentioned, dependance on the soil’s fertility is un- stable since it is a non-renewable resource. With the factor of population increase, there is an inevitable need for finding new fertile land. First newcomers settle strategically on the most fertile patch of the land. People that come after them settle on the patch that is slightly less advantageous and so on until there is no benefit of settling in that particular area and they rather move further. That applies to later newcomers and later relatives of original settlers. The movement is in waves rather than fluent contin- uous motion. The quality of life is determined by the order of arrival and the ability to protect the occupied territory.

4.2 Summed probability distribution

Supporting the archaeogenetic conclusions and ideal despotic distribution about the population increase, we researched and collected the existing calibrated radiocarbon dates throughout the databases and publications. New adjusted database in Microsoft Access was created with necessary information about the samples (Fig.1). We took the lab code information, date and sigma that were determined and put them in the OxCal program. With the use of “Sum()” function the datasets were summarized, and the probability of the population distribution was determined. The samples were selected by their origin area – only data from regions of Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia and Austria, and date/cultural classification – Mesolithic and early Neolithic data (Tab.1). The outcome is the summed radiocarbon probability curve that helps us trace the population trend.

21 METHODOLOGY

Example Sum() { R_Date(“Lab code of the sample”, year, sigma); R_Date(“Lab code of the sample”, year, sigma); };

Figure 1

The database consists of the Lab code, date, sigma, country, and district and/or cadastre and name of the site if it is known. Then the context name, type and structure, context dating, note and the material of the sample, and the sources of the data.

Table 1

Name Sample count Austria 56 Czech Republic 180 Hungary 169 Slovakia 18 Sum 423

22 SOURCE MATERIAL CRITIQUE

5 Source material critique

The use of data for archaeogenetic analysis can be limiting, since the number of samples is hardly representative because of the state of a research, more so when we are talking about central Europe, that is still stuck at cultural-historical paradigm. The idea of interdisciplinarity research in archaeology is also fairly new, which means there are a lot of obstacles in terms of understanding basic terms that are used with different meaning in different science fields. Furholt (2020) argues that there are conceptual problems and misunderstandings between archaeology and genetics and that the most archaeogenetic papers downplay social conditions and factors in human history. While that might be to some extent true, the fact that the collaboration of genetics and archaeology could be potentially immensely helpful for the research of ancient migration history cannot be ignored. There is a need to look for a consensus between the two. In order to work well together, there needs to be mutual language with working terms established. The argument that the objectivity is affected is also questionable. Archae- ology is, and always will be to some extent a subjective field of study and bringing more science fields to picture could help reduce this issue (Furholt 2020, 1). The archaeogenetic methods are prone to false interpretations from the genetics side too. The phy- logeographic tree method follows patterns that can be just random coincidental occurrence instead of a followed aspect of history. The results of interpretation of summary patterns are also prone to be random and therefore inaccurate. The explicit modeling might be the most accurate but is difficult to work with and interpret (Thomas 2013). The use of summed probability distribution curve (e.g., Shennan 2018) is gaining popularity in archaeology but also in paleo-environmental studies. Declassifying of radiocarbon calibration programs like OxCal or Calib and increasing number of radiocarbon determinations lead to the increasing interest in this method in archaeology (Williams 2012, 578). The data from charcoal are not fully credible and they are to be viewed critically. Samples from other materials are preferred. Summed probability distribution curve as a proxy for population density increase during the time of the spread of farming has the same problem as archaeogenetic data. The lack of samples for radiocarbon analyses can lead to incomplete and biased conclusions. This, however, is not the only issue of the method. Intra-site sampling is a problem because the samples are rarely representative since the samples are strategically selected to frame a stratigraphic sequence. The results of the sample are linked to the size of the sample. The calibration curve and processes are affecting the form of the summed probability distributions, and there is a taphonomic loss as well (Williams 2012, 579).

23 CURRENT STATE OF RESEARCH

6 Current state of research

The research of Neolithization came a long way and covered various hypotheses. In this chapter we will look at how the most recent research is developing and viewing the chosen topics as environment, mobility, economy, interactions of GH and farmers, diseases, and settlement centered around Neolithic. In the 90s the Neolithization is viewed as colonizing of migrating farmers. There was very little evidence or any information regarding the role of hunters-gatherers in the process of Neolithization, therefore they were paid little attention (Shier 2015). Sielmann (1971), defined colonization of new convenient areas as a process of first agricultural societies of minimizing the consequences of their adaptation to new environment. Lüning (1988) is using radiocarbon data to support his hypotheses of the rapid expansion and is considering a change in mentality and society to be key factors rather than environment. Kind (1998) is proposing a model of coexisting and interactions between hunters-gatherers and LBK. Bánffy (2004) is mentioning a role of acculturation indigenous Mesolithic groups in northwest Hungary where they were to interact with neighboring Starčevo cultures and they together were to be a basis for the formation of the LBK culture, and from there they would migrate further to the west. Pavúk (2018) is proposing a model where LBK culture was formed in Transdanubia, to the north from the Starčevo culture, along the Danube River ranging up to the southwest Slovakia. Lüning (2007) is proposing a “missionary” model with limited migration and in small extent an acculturation of the Mesolithic groups.

6.1 Environment

Climate can be considered one of many factors influencing the settlement strategy and economy of prehistoric populations. Neolithic climate is regarded to be relatively stable with temperature around 2 to 3 °C warmer than today (Rulf 1982, 38). Climate can be studied through multiple sources. Lake level records, warm adapted vegetation in northern Europe, occurrence of the pond tortoise outside its present-day breeding range, rates of ambient-temperature carbonate and deposition of tufa (which can provide stable isotopic temperature records), reconstruction from bog surface wetness, just to name a few (Brown et al 2015, 3). Last 20 years brought an increasing focus on the Holocene climatic change research. As was mentioned, various geochemical and biological climate proxies can be deduced from lake sediments, raised mires, and allu- vial sequences. The most comprehensive one would be the lake level record, with the Alpine region being the most valuable (Magny 2004; Rapuc 2019). These studies pro- duced a direct evidence of vegetation from pollen and plant macrofossils (Brown et al 2015, 3). According to paleoclimatic studies, climate has been changed from wet to dry around 5150 BC. We find the latest LBK sites in upland regions that would not consider

24 CURRENT STATE OF RESEARCH to be suitable for farmers to settle on (Brown et al 2015, 6). The Mesolithic and Neo- lithic populations of central Europe preferred different living environment. Mesolithic centered around forest vegetation and its wider biodiversity and Neolithic loess soil. That could play a role in a fact that their contacts are considered to be on a minimal level (Kitter et al 2019). One of the most important findings of palaeoenvironmental studies was the identification of a climatic and biogeographic barrier. This so called Central European–Balkanic Agro-Ecological Barrier, marked the northernmost distribution of Balkanic environmental influences in the Carpathian Basin (Bánffy – Sümegi 2012, 57-58). The climatic conditions on the southern side of this boundary, in the Danube–Tisza region and in southern Transdanubia were the most favorable for a food-producing population from the Balkans. Despite the favorable climatic conditions, this region is characterized by sandy soils, to which not only the people were not accustomed to, but also was unsuitable for long-term settlement and crop cultivation. Together with the sandy soil, the limited agricultural knowledge was the reason for the emergence of the boundary in the spread of food production. It is indicated that by the 5th millennium BC, farmer communities adapted to the new regions and improved their farming techniques, and they crossed the agro-ecological barrier (Bánffy – Sümegi 2012, 59).

6.2 Mobility

We can consider farming to be one of the most influential foundations on which the later civilization has been built. It has had an impact not only on an economic sphere or human society, but on the human biology itself. Therefore, the amount of attention this topic gained among the researchers is not surprising. We might not be able to observe migrations of people directly, but thanks to archaeogenetics, we can observe special changes in genomic ancestries over time. These changes can indicate when people started having children in new location, away from their homeland (Racomo et al 2019, 1). The studies concluded hypotheses that the loci of agricultural origins is probably in much larger number of places than previously anticipated. According to Shennan (2018), the region of south-west Asia remains to be the superior one, based on the fact that crops and animals domesticated there were the subsistence foundations of the early civilizations of the western Old World (Shennan 2018, 1). Expansion of farming spans along the Mediterranean coastline to Iberia and along the river Danube to central Europe. The continental route, going through southeastern Europe and spanning towards central Europe, shows a swift expansion with evidence for cultural exchange with local hunters-gatherers, and a continued coexistence preceded by very limited initial biological interaction. A similar pattern observed in Iberia, shows increase of admixture at least one millennium after the initial settlement of first farmer groups.

25 CURRENT STATE OF RESEARCH

The observed pattern links Mediterranean route to the Neolithic expansion in south- western Europe. Interpretation of these studies seems to be leading towards a conclusion suggesting little admixture between local indigenous hunters-gatherers and first incoming farmers in all targeted regions, after which, during an advanced phase of the Neolithic, comes an increase of hunters-gatherers ancestry. The contributing hunters- gatherers component detected in later Neolithic phases has been observed to be of the Iberia’s and Carpathian Basin’s local origin (Rivollat et al 2020, 1). Locally, some of the skeletons (e.g., Brun – Nikitin - Stadler et al. 2018) show up to 50% of hunters-gatherers gene pool. The LBK settled on the vast area of Transdanubia by the mid-sixth millennium BC. The expansion occurred in shifts. By around 5400 BC, it reached up to Rhine, then went further west, with terminal phase establishing in the Paris Basin around 5000 BC (Gronenborn – Dolukhanov, 2015, 4). The most intensive research of the LBK has been focused on regions of northern Bohe- mia, Paris basin and lower Rhine area. Lüning’s research starting in 1983 (Lüning 1988) brought a new information about settlement, lithic distribution, dating, and regional variation. In 1960, Quitta suggested a region around Lake Balaton as the origin of the LBK. Excavation at the site of Szentgyörgyvölgy–Pityerdomb uncovered transi- tional material of both Starčevo culture and LBK, together with structures resembling LBK longhouses (Schier 2015, 2). It was believed that there is a little evidence of genetic similarity of LBK with Mesolithic hunters-gatherers but also with modern Europeans. This was used as an argument for the predominant immigration of an early Neolithic Anatolian population into central Europe (Bramanti et al. 2009), but recent aDNA analysis suggests that earlier Neolithic Starčevo and Körös cultures, had admixture of 4–5% from indigenous groups. How- ever, across the distribution of the LBK there remains debated evidence for the incor- poration of hunter-gatherers, in the use of cereals, lithics and pottery prior to the arrival of the LBK (Bickle 2018, 446). One of the recent studies is of Nikitin – Stadler (2019), they found out that individuals from Brunn had an admixture of hunters-gatherers in their gene pool. The arriving wave of population from Middle East to Europe is supported by various analyses of patterns of ancestry. Also, the studies of datasets of radiocarbon-dated domestic plants, animals and various contextual finds indicate that this migration wave spread farming practices into the region (Racomo et al 2019, 1). Modern research of paleogenetics, archeobotnical data and absolute dating seems to be supporting the introduction of Neolithic economy into central Europe by demic diffusion around 5600 BC (Schier, 2015, s5). Looking at the geographical distribution, it appears the Neolithization advanced in waves, in episodes of fast spread that was followed by stagnation. The early Neolithic Starčevo–Körös–Criş culture centered for centuries around northern boundary zone, from Slavonia and central Transdanubia eastwards across the

26 CURRENT STATE OF RESEARCH

Tisza region into south-eastern Transylvania and southern Moldova (Schier 2015, s6). Zvelebil (2001) listed several demographic advance mechanisms: - migration of people: the directional movement of a whole population from one region to another which led to genetic replacement, - demic diffusion by means of a wave of advance, - elite dominance: the local population is penetrated by social elite that imposes a new culture, - infiltration of a community by small numbers of specialists fulfilling a particular need, such as livestock farmers, - leapfrog colonization by small groups targeting optimal areas to form an enclave surrounded by indigenous inhabitants, - frontier mobility, or exchange between farmers and foragers at agricultural frontier zones and, - regional contact, involving trade and exchange of ideas (Zvelebil 2001, 2).

Studying strontium isotope evidence shows different mobility histories of males and females. Based on the fact that the results show the greater proportion of females on the LBK cemeteries is explained by the patrilocal kinship system, which means that it was the women who relocated for the marriage purposes. Keeping, herding, and overall ownership of livestock is associated with patrilocality, which would suggest that patrilocality was to be the most stable kinship system for LBK society (e.g., Holden et al. 2003) (Bentley, 2012, 305). The study of Bentley et al (2012) about social organization and differentiation at the population scale from across the LBK distribution derived evidence from isotopic analysis of human skeletons. It provided indicators concerning diet, health, and place of origin that can be compared with the differing LBK burial contexts. They took more than 550 samples from eastern France to northern Hungary, which included the LBK cemeteries of Vedrovice in the Czech Republic, Nitra in Slovakia, and Kleinhadersdorf in Austria (Bentley et al 2012, 9326). They discovered that the patterns indicated that women were more likely than men to have originated from, or obtained their subsistence from, areas outside the preferred loess of these LBK settlements. The results indicate the importance of sex-biased mobility patterns in Neolithic expansion. This patrilocality suggests that males “inherited” the land and lived where they were born, and females moved to marry and live outside their area of birth (Bentley et al 2012, 9329).

6.3 Economy

The LBK culture chose sites located in landscapes hallmarked by loess, on slopes that are slightly inclined towards small streams. While there are some exceptions like hill settlements (Deggendorf-Natternberg) or the edge of high mountains (Spiš region in

27 CURRENT STATE OF RESEARCH

Slovakia), the LBK rarely used the floodplains and hills further away from the water. The majority of LBK settlements are positioned along streams and the process of their formation often started in one place, from which neighboring settlements would be established. Apart from this characteristic trait, there are also others like rainfall, temperature, sunshine duration, vegetation surrounding settlements, and finally, bedrock and soil (Petrasch 2020, 249). The low-lying loess soils along the river valleys of central Europe provided fertile and productive soils for the early crop species (Bentley et al 2012, 9326). Therefore, we can say that a sustainable agricultural economy could be established in the regions with fertile, easily arable soils, precipitation, suitable temperature, and natural resources. Regions of Central Europe experienced the first shift to farming during the later seventh and throughout the fifth millennium, and in the central European northern plain hunting, fishing, and gathering remained the domi- nant economy until 4000–3800 BC (Gronenborn-Dolukhanov 2015, 3).

6.4 Farming

One of the most influential causes for changes in human gene frequencies in the past 10 000 years is undoubtedly domestication. Just few examples being: - the very spread of human genes from the agricultural homelands, - new appearing genetic resistance to new diseases, othe evolution of milk tolerance of adults (in milk-consuming populations of northern Europe and parts of Africa), - the increased tolerance to alcohol consumption (consumption of beer in western Eurasia because of its nutritional importance), - and the adaptation to the new diet which was based on higher amount of carbohy- drates, saturated fats, calories, and salt compared to the hunter-gatherer diet (Dia- mond 2002, 704). Shennan (2018) discusses that the farming originated due to broadening of people’s diet. That led to increasing sedentism because the dependence on plant resources started to drastically increase and that led to increase in natality but also the mortality of children. The spread enabled them to be reproductively successful by colonizing new territories. We assume that cereals spread into central Europe with the early Neolithic Line- arbandkeramik (LBK) Culture from ca. 5500 B.C. onwards. The earliest finds of culti- vated cereals come from sites of the Early Neolithic LBK Culture (Dreslerová-Kočár 2013, 257). The evidence for cereal growing prior to the LBK is based on the pollen analyses, the problem being that the interpretation is still problematic, since it does not provide a confirmation of farming itself, but only the suggestion of the fact that the found plants were familiar to the Mesolithic population (Bicle 2018, 446). Some major crops of LBK economy farming were emmer, einkorn, lentils, and peas (Gronenborn- Dolukhanov 2015, 5). A study of Kreuz and Marinova (2017) included 67 Neolithic

28 CURRENT STATE OF RESEARCH sites from Bulgaria, Austria, and Germany has provided insights on cultural differences in Neolithic agricultural practices. Their study has shown that quantitative data from different Neolithic cultures and time periods are suitable basis for understanding on- site display of charred plant remains. Charred cereal remains are well preserved and show comparable concentrations per feature, whereas pulses and oil crops generally occur in minor frequencies and concentrations. The chaff concentration of einkorn and emmer increase during the later periods, most probably connected with changes in the dehusking. Later Linear Pottery Culture sites showed an increased emphasis on pulses. They link pulses diversity used at the south-east European sites to risk man- agement strategy which prioritized drought resistant crops. Pea was favored, being the most productive and easiest to handle in terms of cultivation and processing. They observed lower crop diversity between the Bulgarian Neolithic and the earliest Linear Pottery Culture and suggested that there were two different systems of farming, in- cluding: human resources requirements, knowhow, and different culinary traditions and tastes (Kreuz-Marinova 2017, 653). They explained these differences as an outcome of the cultural decisions based on the adaptations to ecological conditions (Kreuz-Malinova 2017, 654).

6.5 Domestication

Animal husbandry can be considered as one of the turning points in human biology in terms of health, nutrition, but also in introduction of new diseases, social organization and exchange (McClure 2013, 57). We can assume that the introducing animals to the new territories had an impact on the environment and food production of the population (McClure 2013, 61). The researchers are finding remains of sheep (Ovis aries), goats (Capra hircus), cattle (Bos taurus), pigs (Sus domesticus), and dogs (Canis familiaris) (McClure 2013, 60). Cattle, pigs, sheep, and goats are considered to be the main four Neolithic farm animals. DNA studies provide the evidence of the introduction of domesticated cattle to Europe in the Neolithic. Aurochs (Bos primigenius), being the indigenous central European animal, show divergent mitochondrial lineages that split from the lineages of modern domesticated cattle before the very domestication. There is an evidence of contact between Anato- lian and European herders, which allowed the subsequent, steady introduction of cattle to Europe (Scheu 2016, 103). Pigs (Sus scrofa) seem to be different from cattle. MtDNA studies reveal that introgression from the wild after the domestication played a significant role in their introduction to Europe. It looks like on their way from Anatolia, the wild boar replaced the former founder lineage of the south-west Asia initial domestication (Schleu 2016, 104). The DNA research of sheep (Ovis aries) domestication is not as broad as those of cattle

29 CURRENT STATE OF RESEARCH and pigs. It looks like the Asian Mufflon and Urial sheep could be the progenitor species of the domesticated sheep (Schleu 2016, 104). The DNA study of goat (Capra hircus) show traces of intensive migration and trade that might have started as early as their first domestication and it looks like there might have been two domestication processes in the Near East (Schleu 2016, 104). Based on zooarchaeological research of mtDNA and on the affinity between DNA sequences of domestic animals and their wild counterparts and the assumption that branching patterns on phylogenetic trees reflect independent domestication episodes suggests that most animals (except of pigs) were only domesticated once, and that animal domestication was a less rare than previously thought. This has been used for supporting claims for domestications of genetically and geographically divergent populations of pigs, goats, sheep, horses, and cows (Larson-Fuller, 2014, 121). The problem is that the most of these genetic data sets consisted of sequences derived from the mitochondria (mtDNA). MtDNA is limited in identifying and quantifying hybridization. This lack of discriminatory power is a problem because we cannot identify if the appearance of divergent mitochondrial haplotypes in domestic populations are a result of an independent domestication process of geographically and genetically divergent wild populations or of introgression of a wild population into domestic stock (Larson- Fuller, 2014, 121). To overcome this mitochondrial limitation, the nuclear genome, sometimes combined with modeling approaches, is used to access, and analyze a population genetics framework. These show us that gene flow is common between geographically diverse domestic populations of the same species as well as between domestic populations and wild species. For example, studies concluded that populations of pigs domesticated in one place and then moved to a new region serially acquire the mitochondrial signature of local wild boar populations. This suggests persistent admixture between wild populations indigenous to regions outside the core areas where pigs were initially domesticated (Larson-Fuller, 2014, 121).

6.6 Diseases

With the new trend of farming there is a first probable occurrence of the epidemics and parasites. Humans might have gained their parasites and infections either from inher- iting them from the ancestors or by acquiring them from wild or domesticated animals (Morand et al 2014, 76). The study of Morand et al (2014) confirmed that there is a link between the time of the animal domestication and the building of shared parasitic and microbial communities with humans.With the accumulation of animals and their close contact with still increasing population came poor sanitary conditions (Stone 2020, 1). The move to sedentism and increased population densities likely changed disease ecology with increases in parasitism and infectious disease linked to waste and unclean water (Stone 2020, 2). Also, domestic animals could have been a conduit of

30 CURRENT STATE OF RESEARCH pathogens that then adapted to humans. (Stone 2020, 1). For example, pigs have been proposed as the domestic intermediary for strains that ultimately became human specific (Stone 2020, 2). While hunter-gatherers show evidence of infection by long-lived lower virulence pathogens like helminths and other, low population densities of hunter-gatherers likely provided protection against the spread of high virulence pathogens (Stone 2020, 2).

6.7 Interactions among first farmers and hunters-gatherers

Social, demographic, economical, nutritional, and genetic transformation of Neolithic population is linked to the new way of food production introduced to Europe by Near- East immigrant farmers (Tresset-Vigne 2011, 182). A previous Mesolithic populations links and interactions with newcomers is being discussed among researchers. It looks like the genetic continuity of these two populations might be linked to demographic conditions at the time. Some parts of Europe were populated by Mesolithic people more than the others, and therefore new coming farmers would encounter different conditions. These different competitive and interactive conditions would then impact the genetic collisions and flow of the two (Lahr et al 2000, 87). In terms of Central Eu- rope and Neolithization, we are following the LBK culture and its origins. The origins question stays problematic, and several models are proposed.First being an Indigenist model which suggests LBK is based on integration of Mesolithic hunter-gatherers into farmers population through mechanisms such as leapfrog colonization, frontier mobility and contact. The Starčevo-Körös-Criş (SKC) culture, being supposed predecessors of LBK, were supposed to leave Balkans and occupy areas to the north and west, where they came to contact with Mesolithic groups, and they were to exchange products which would lead hunter-gatherers to integrate with them and adopt new farming practices. One of the examples of this exchange is documented on the Tiszaszőlős- Domaháza site in northeastern Hungary (Nikitin -Stadler et al 2019, 3). The second one is the Migrationist model, and it claims that the newcoming farmer societies would ar- rive and replicate the material culture of their ancestors without any using material culture of hunter-gatherers. Therefore, Mesolithic indigenous populations would not influence the new arriving Starčevo-Körös-Criş colonizers. To some extent, farmers would adapt material culture like pottery, building material and lithic sources to the new environment but the other parts like decorative designs and cultural objects would stay the same. According to archaeogenetic studies there it a small evidence for genetic exchange and continuation of arriving farmers and indigenous hunter-gatherers but on the other hand, there is an evidence of goods exchange between them (Ni- kitin - Stadler et al 2019, 3).Even when they are genetically unrelated, as proven by archaeogenetics, the question of the extent of exchange between Neolithic farmers and Mesolithic hunter-gatherers remains to be answered (Nikitin - Stadler et al 2019,

31 CURRENT STATE OF RESEARCH

4).One of the influential sites of this topic researched and analyzed in recent years is Brunn in Austria. Dated to 5670-5350 cal BCE, to the earliest development stages of LBK, it is one of the oldest Neolithic sites known in central Europe (Nikitin – Stadler et al 2019, 4). There is an evidence of biological interactions between new arriving farmers and local hunters-gatherers (Nikitin - Stadler et al 2019, 13). It is apparent that the formation process of Starčevo and LBK cultures was more complex. We are talking not simply about immigration and cultural deterioration but about complex process of An- atolian farmers movement and Mesolithic or earlier Balkan Neolithic farmers influence on them and thus establishment of the LBK (Nikitin – Stadler et al 2019, 15). Newly typed genome-wide data from 12 sites (101 individuals) from modern-day Germany and France were presented in the study of ancient DNA (Rivollat et al 2020). This study confirms a high variability of processes during the Neolithic expansion by highlighting a diverse pattern of biological and cultural interactions between indigenous hunters- gatherers and first farmers along the cultural and Mediterranean coastline and west of the Rhine. Admixture in early farmers was compared to central and southeastern Eu- rope, higher west of the Rhine, and is also largely attributed to local and distinctly western hunters-gatherers. Tracking of this admixture was allowed by the genetic structure among hunters-gatherers groups (Rivollat et al 2020, 9).

32 RESULTS

7 Results

The study of Neolithization came a long way since the initial introduction of the topic. The appearance of LBK was supposed to occur due to the interactions of Mesolithic and Starčevo-Körös-Criş cultures (Bánffy 2004) or according to Pavúk (2018) the LBK formed in Transdanubia, to the north from the Starčevo culture. The view of Neolithization came a long way, from seeing it as colonizing of new famers, adaptation to new environment and minimizing the consequences of it, to hypotheses about the changes in mentality and society to be the cause and so on. The involvement of the indigenous populations of hunters-gatherers with the arriving agro-economic societies is discussed (Nikitin – Stadler 2019). There was paid little attention to the role of hunter-gatherers to the Neolithization because of the sparse evidence or information regarding it. In the 90s, the coexistence and interactions between hunters-gatherers and LBK is discussed. In early 2000s, the studies from northwest Hungary laid hypothesis of interactions between indigenous Mesolithic groups and Starčevo- Körös culture (Bánffy 2004) and these were considered to be the basis for the LBK formation. Based on the data collected for the bachelor’s thesis we can use the Körös culture as an example of the culture chronologically preceding the LBK. We see that the appearance of the Körös culture around 6000 cal. BC It appeared before the LBK but also, we see approximately 200 years of coexistence between them in the studied area. The concentration of dates from Körös culture is around 6000 to 5250 cal. BC (Fig. 2) and the concentration of the LBK in Hungary region around 5480/5300 cal. BC (Fig. 4) but the span of the Körös culture would be approximately 6050 to 5000 cal. BC (Fig. 2) and of the LBK around 5600 to 4900 cal. BC (Fig 4). The span of an appearance of the LBK in regions of today’s Hungary, Slovakia, Czech Republic, and Austria based on the collected data would be around 5700 to 4800 cal. BC (Fig. 3). The ideal despotic distribution model is describing neolithization as a progress that happened in waves. It says that the spread of population is fueled by the need of acquiring new land but takes territoriality into consideration. The movement is in waves rather than fluent contin- uous motion. There is expected to be a significant population density growth in the Neolithic. With the new strategy of living, food production and settlement arriving to the area of central Europe, we see the population increase in the studied areas. The use of OxCal confirmed this hypothesis. If we look at the overall population density graph (Fig. 5) of the studied area, we see that the collected data starting with the Mesolithic up to 7800 cal. BC were maintaining approximately the same density up to 6100 cal. BC. We observe a rapid increase around 6000 cal. BC up to 5700 cl. BC with then rapid decrease in 5650 cal. BC. The 300 years that follow appear to be without any significant movement. Around 5350 cal. BC, there is again rapid density increase followed by decrease around 5150 cal. BC. with almost immediate increase lasting approximately another 100 years. After that,

33 RESULTS we see a regress and stagnation closer we get to the Eneolithic. We observe three main waves of population increase and can interpret these periods of population increase and regress as migrating in waves.

Figure 2

34 RESULTS

Figure 3

Figure 4

35 RESULTS

If we take a closer look to the individual regions, we see slight differences in population trend. The population of region of todays Hungary (Fig. 6) shows the greatest increase starting at around 6000 cal. BC reaching its peak at 5800/5700 cal. BC followed with the regress at around 5650 cal. BC. Another wave that followed at around 5350 cal. BC was significantly smaller and dropped rapidly at around 5200 cal. BC. The third, smallest wave followed right after the second and lasted until around 5050 cal. BC. From then the population increased and went stagnant.

Figure 5

The situation in the Austria region (Fig. 7) is again, similar. We can again observe three main waves, but unlike region of Hungary, they are preceded by two smaller ones and followed, again, by one smaler that appears to be lasting the longest. The first small one starts around 5650 cal. BC with its peak at around 5625 cal. BC and decline at 5600 cal. BC. The second small wave follows 50 years later and declines at 5500 cal. BC. At around 5450 cal. BC, the first big wave hits its peak and 50 years after is decreased again. The second big wave hits at around 5370 cal. BC. and is decreased at 5300 cal. BC. The third main wave increases at 5270 cal. BC and drops at 5200 cal. BC. The final,

36 RESULTS smaller but more stabe wave lasted from around 5180 cal. BC until 5000 cal. BC where it started to decrease again. The region of Slovakia (Fig. 8) shows, again, traces of three waves, the first starting around 5500 cal. BC followed by decrease 50 years later. Second, much larger wave, starting at 5400 cal. BC reached its peak around 5300 cal. BC and decreased at 5200 cal. BC. This was followed by almost immediate third wave, reaching its peak at around 5150 cal. BC. The population then decreased around 5050 cal. BC and around 5000 cal. BC reached it smallest point (concerning the early Neolithic).

Figure 6

Czech Republic (Fig. 9) seems to be slightly different. Only two waves are visible based on the collected data. First one starting at around 5400 cal. BC with the peak at 5300 cal. BC and decrease at 5200 cal. BC, followed almost immediately by the second wave, reaching its peak at 5150 cal. BC, and declining at 5100 cal. BC. The population reached its bottom at 5000 cal. BC. Concerning the region of the Czech Republic, the data showed the largest concentration of the Mesolithic population. Based on the observation of the starting point of these waves, we see that the earliest ones started in Hungary (6000 cal. BC), followed by Austria (5650 cal. BC), Slovakia (5500 cal. BC) and finally Czech Republic (5400 cal. BC). Looking at these data, there seems to be a link between the starting and ending points of waves between the areas. First wave in Hungary ends around 5650 cal. BC and first wave in Austria begins around the same time. Continuing, that same Austrian wave

37 RESULTS ends around 5600 cal. BC, but the second wave declines at around 5500 cal. BC. The first Slovakian wave starts at 5500 cal. BC and ends around 5450 cal. BC. And finally, the first wave in Czech Republic starts around 5400 cal. BC. This observation could show the route of the LBK progress, though definitive conclusions cannot be drawn because of the insufficient amount and uneven distribution of collected data. Lastly, concerning the agro-ecological barrier we can observe that the traces of the Ne- olithic economy in a form of the LBK, are starting to appear beyond the barrier around 5750 cal. BC (Fig.10).

Figure 7

38 RESULTS

Figure 8

Figure 9

39 RESULTS

Figure 10

40 DISCUSSION

8 Discussion

The introduction of archaeogenetics to the archaeology research of ancient migrations allowed new insights to the topic. The results of archaeogenetic studies yield funda- mentally different picture of the nature of neolithization as previous analyzes of material culture. The use of genetics in modern archaeological research contributed to the study of ancient populations. The aDNA research is concluded on various topics, from studying crops cultivation, animal domestication, appearance of diseases, to the origins, evolution and spread of population. With the various faults and variables of genetics methods in mind, researchers must consider by themselves if it is a beneficial method for their research and if they are able to interpret the results as objectively as possible.The admixing of the hunters-gatherers and farmers was discussed only theoretically, there were no resources available for our own analyzes, which would be helpful to do in the future. The use of summed probability and radiocarbon data became popular as well. The availability of calibrating programs and greater amount of data encouraged the use of this method amongst researchers. But even those are not enough for the painting of the fully objective results. Even though the summed probability distribution curve can be used as a proxy for the population density movement, the lack and handling of samples are altering the results. These obstacles were met in the collecting data for this bachelor’s thesis as well. The fact that the accessible data are sparse might have led to misinterpretations and incomplete results. For the future, more objective and com- plete research of the migration of the Neolithic population, there needs to be more analyzes done. Plus, the very research and on-site methodology need to put more emphasis on the collecting and preserving samples even before analyzing them, to prevent contamination and thus altered results. The ideal despotic distribution model puts emphasis on the migration in waves. The results of the Batchelor’s thesis show the phases of increase and decrease that we can interpret as the migration waves. These waves in singular regions seem to be inter- linked, which could be interpreted as the migration spread. While there has been a lot of discussion about contact between hunters-gatherers and first farmers, research has also been discussing regional differences across the LBK in Europe. The modern research is focusing on the patterns of diversity in local communities and the specializa- tion of them (Bentley et al 2012, 303). The question of the origin of the LBK is being discussed as well. Bánffy (2004) is suggesting the indigenous Mesolithic hunters-gatherers admixing with Starčevo culture and thus being the basis for the LBK, while Pavúk (2018) is proposing a model where LBK culture was formed in Transdanubia, to the north from the Starčevo culture. Based

41 DISCUSSION on the collected data, the earliest traces of the Körös culture are observed to be as early as 5800 cal. BC, but this result is distorted because of the amount of the data. This could mean that the introduction of the Neolithic economy to Central Europe took place earlier than anticipated, but more analyses need to be done to draw a conclusion. The data from Mesolithic period were accessible only from the region of Czech Repub- lic. Bánffy (2012) is concluding that by the 5th millennium BC, farmer communities adapted to the new regions and improved their farming techniques and crossed the agro-ecological barrier. The data collected for the thesis confirm and show that the first traces of the Neolithic in the form of LBK beyond the agro-ecological barrier go back to 5450 cal. BC (Graph 9). Though, extreme data needed to be excluded from calculation because of the data dis- tortion. The migration from the barrier up north is followed and it seems to correlate with the hypothesis of migration waves. However, the question cannot be answered fully objectively, therefore it stays open. It is up to the future studies to extend and analyze more data to further the research of the migration using the radiocarbon dates.

42 CONCLUSION

9 Conclusion

The aim of the thesis was to try to summarize the state of the research concerning the topic of Neolithization of Central Europe, specifically the regions of Hungary, Austria, Slovakia, and Czech Republic. It explains the basic methodology of genetics and its use in the archaeology and study of interactions between hunters-gatherers, domestication of crops and animals, economy, and settlement concerning the Neolithic, evolution of diseases linked to the spread of farming and ancient migrations and mobility. At the same time, it introduces the ideal despotic distribution model and its use in migration theories together with the use of summed radiocarbon probability curve. The Neolithic research is highly focused on the study of the Neolithic environment and climatic change for which it uses sources like lake level records, warm adapted vegetation in northern Europe, occurrence of the pond tortoise outside its present-day breeding range, rates of ambient-temperature carbonate and deposition of tufa, reconstruction from bog surface wetness and so on. One of the most important findings of palaeoenvironmental studies was the identification of a climatic and biogeographic barrier called Central European–Balkanic Agro-Ecological Barrier. Geographical distribution data seems to show of the wave advance of the Neolithic. The research in our studied area is focused on the Linearbandkeramik or LBK culture, its origin, expansion, and interactions with other populations. The LBK settled on the vast area of Transdanubia by the mid-sixth millennium BC. By around 5400 BC, it reached up to Rhine, then went further west. The genetic similarity of LBK with Mesolithic hunters-gatherers is not confirmed, but the earlier Neolithic Starčevo and Körös cultures, show the admixture of 4–5% from indigenous Mesolithic groups. The interaction of the LBK and hunters-gatherers is the focus of ongoing debates. Studying strontium isotope evidence shows different mobility histories of males and females. The question of the origins of the LBK is debated in the academic community. A sustainable agricultural economy could be established in the regions with fertile, easily arable soils, precipitation, suitable temperature, and natural resources. Farming and animal domestication has been one of the most influential causes of changes in human gene frequencies in past 10 000 years. Some major crops of LBK economy farming were emmer, einkorn, lentils, and peas and animals were cattle, sheep, goats and pigs. The introduction of these new species to the European territories had an impact on the environment and food production. With the new strategy of living, food production and settlement arriving to the area of central Europe, we see the population increase in the studied areas. For the confirmation of this assumption, the online publicly available program named OxCal, provided by The University of Oxford has been used. We used it to determine the probable density in the defined time and to follow population trends.

43 CONCLUSION

Furthermore, the observations of our results show a possible route of the LBK progress, though conclusions cannot be objectively made because of the amount of collected data.

44 BIBLIOGRAPHY

10 Bibliography

1. Avise, J. - Arnold, J. - Ball, R. et al., 1987: Intraspecific phylogeography: the mitochondrial DNA bridge between population genetics and systematics. Annual Re- view of Ecology and Systematics 18, 489–522. 2. Bánffy, E. 2004.: The 6th millennium BC boundary in western Transdanubia and its role in the central European Neolithic transition (The Szentgyörgyvölgy- Pityerdomb settlement). Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 15. Budapest: Archaeolingua. 3. Bánffy, E. – Sümegi, P. 2012: The Early Neolithic Agro-Ecological Barrier in the Carpathian Basin: A Zone for Interaction, In: Anreiter, P. – Bánffy, E. – Bartosie- wicz, L. – Meid, W. – Metzner-Nebelsick, C. (eds) 2012: Archaeological, Cultural and Linguistic Heritage, 57-69. 4. Barta, P. et al. 2013: Database of radiocarbon dates measured on archaeological samples from Slovakia, Czechia, and adjacent regions. Archaeological Chronome- try in Slovakia, Slovak Research and Development Agency Project No. APVV- 0598-10, 2011 -2014, Dept. of Archaeology, Faculty of Arts, Comenius University in Bratislava. URL: http://www.c14.sk. 5. Bláhová-Sklenářová, Z. - Prostředník, J. 2007 : Stavby kultury s lineární keramikou v Turnově "Maškových zahradách". In: Tichý, R. (ed.) 2007: Otázky neolitu a eneolitu našich zemí. Sborník referátů z 25. zasedání badatelů pro výzkum neolitu Čech, Moravy a Slovenska. Archeologické studie Univerzity Hradec Králové 1. Hradec Králové, 2007, 14-24. 6. Beaumont, M. - Zhang, W. - Balding, D. 2002: Approximate Bayesian computation in population genetics. Genetics 162, 2025–2035. 7. Bentley, A. 2012: Mobility and the diversity of Early Neolithic lives: Isotopic evidence from skeletons, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 32/3, 303-312. 8. Bentley, R. et al. 2012: Community differentiation and kinship among Europe’s first farmers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109, 9326 - 9330. 9. Bickle, P. 2018: Stable isotopes and dynamic diets: The Mesolithic-Neolithic die- tary transition in terrestrial central Europe, Journal of Archaeological Science 22, 444 – 451. 10. Bien, G. S. - Pandolfi, L. J. 1972: La Jolla Natural Radiocarbon Measurements VI. Radiocarbon 14, 368-379. 11. Bramanti, B. et. al. 2009: Genetic discontinuity between local hunter-gatherers and central Europe’s first farmers. 12. Bronk Ramsey, Ch. - Higham, T. - Whittle, A. - Bartosiewicz, L. 2007: Radiocar- bon chronology. In: Whittle, A. (ed.) 2007: The Early Neolithic on the Great

45 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Hungarian Plain. Investigations of the Körös culture site of Ecsegfalva 23, County Békés. Varia Archaeologica Hungarica XXI. Budapest, 173-188. 13. Brown, T. – Bailey, G. – Passmore, D. 2015: Environments and Landscape Change; In: Fowler, Ch. – Harding, J. – Hofmann, D. (eds.) 2018: The Oxford Handbook of Neolithic Europe. 14. Burleigh, R. - Ambers, J. - Matthews, K 1983: British Museum natural radiocarbon measurements XVI. Radiocarbon 25, 39-58. 15. Cavalli-Sforza, L. - Menozzi, P. - Piazza, A. 1994: The History and Geography of Human Genes. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 16. Crane, H. R. - Griffin, J. B. 1968: University of Michigan Radiocarbon Dates XII. Radiocarbon 10, 61-114. 17. Dreslerová, D. – Kočár, P. 2013: Trends in cereal cultivation in the Czech Republic from the Neolithic to the Migration period (5500 B.C.–A.D. 580). Veget Hist Ar- chaeobot 22, 257–268. 18. Diamond, J. 2002: Evolution, consequences and future of plant and animal domestication. Nature 418, 700–707. 19. Dočkalová, M. - Koštuřík, P. 1996: Seskupení hrobů nositelů kultury s lineární keramikou na neolitickém sídlišti v Těšeticích-Kyjovicích, okr. Znojmo. Sborník prací Filozofické fakulty Brněnské univerzity. Řada archeologická M1, 5-30. 20. Dočkalová, M. 2008: Anthropology of the Neolithic Population from Vedrovice. Anthropologie. International Journal of the Science of Man 46, 239-315. 21. Domboróczki, L. - Raczky, P. 2010: Excavations at Ibrány-Nagyerdő and the northernmost distribution of the Körös culture in Hungary. In: Kozłowski, K. J. - Raczky, P. (eds.) 2010: Neolithization of the Carpathian Basin: Northernmost distribution of the Starčevo/Körös culture. . Kraków-Budapest, 191-218. 22. Edmonds, C. - Lillie, A. - Cavalli-Sforza, L. 2004: Mutations arising in the wave front of an expanding population. Proceedings of the National Academy of Scien- ces 101, 975–979. 23. Figler, A. - Bartosiewicz, L. - Füleky, G. - Hertelendi, E. 1997: Copper Age Settle- ment and the Danube Water System: a case study from North Western Hungary. In: Chapman, J. - Dolukhanov, P. (eds.) 1997: Landscapes in Flux: Central and Eastern Europe in Antiquity. Colloquia Pontica 3. Oxford, 209-230. 24. Furholt, M. 2020: Biodeterminism and pseudo-objectivity as obstacles for the emerging field of archaeogenetics. Archaeological Dialogues, 27/1, 23-25. 25. Gronenborn, D. – Dukhanov, P. 2015: Early Neolithic Manifestations in Central and Eastern Europe, In: Fowler, Ch. – Harding, J. – Hofman, D. (eds) 2018: The Oxford Handbook of Neolithic Europe, Oxford University Press.

46 BIBLIOGRAPHY

26. Görsdorf, J. 1995: Datierung von Menschenknochen aus dem Gräberfeld Jelšovce. In: Pavúk, J. - Bátora, J. (eds.) 1995: Siedlung und Gräber der Ludanice- Gruppe in Jelšovce. Nitra, 205-208. 27. Holden, C.J. - Sear, R. - Mace, R. 2003: Matriliny as daughter-biased investment. Evolution and Human Behavior 24, 99–112. 28. Horváth, F. - Hertelendi, E. 1994: Contribution to the 14C based absolute chronology of the Early and Middle Neolithic Tisza region. In: A Nyíregyházi Jósa An- drás Múzeum Évkönyve. XXXVI., 111-133. 29. Jakucs, J. et al. 2016: Between the Vinča and Linearbandkeramik Worlds: The Di- versity of Practices and Identities in the 54th–53rd Centuries cal BC in Southwest Hungary and Beyond. J World Prehist 29, 267–336. 30. Kalábek, M. – Kalábková, P. – Peška, J. 2010: A settlement burial in Hulín- Pravčice and its contribution to absolute dating of the Lengyel culture. In: Šute- ková, J. - Pavúk, P. - Kalábková, P. - Kovár, B. (eds.) 2010: PANTA RHEI. Studies on the Chronology and Cultural Development of South-Eastern and Central Eu- rope in Earlier Prehistory Presented to Juraj Pavúk on the Occasion of his 75. Birthday. Studia Archaeologica et Mediaevalia 11. Bratislava, 255-262. 31. Kazdová, E. 2008: Těšetice-Kyjovice (okr. Znojmo). In: Čižmář, Z. (ed.) 2008: Život a smrt v mladší době kamenné. Katalóg výstavy. / Life and Death in the New Stone Age. Exhibition Catalogue. Brno - Znojmo, 88-101. 32. Kind, J. 1998: Komplexe Wildbeuter und frühe Ackerbauern. Bemerkungen zur Ausbreitung der Linearbandkeramik im südlichen Mitteleuropa. Germania 76, 1– 23. 33. Knitter, D. – Brozio, J. – Dörfler, W. et al. 2019: Transforming landscapes: Mode- ling land-use patterns of environmental borderlands. The Holocene. 29(10), 1572-1586. 34. Kohl, G. - Quitta, H 1964: Berlin Radiocarbon Measurements I. Radiocarbon 6, 308-317. 35. Kohl, G. - Quitta, H. 1970: Berlin Radiocarbon Measurements IV. Radiocarbon 12, 400-420. 36. Kreuz, A. – Marinova, E. 2017: Archaeobotanical evidence of crop growing and diet within the areas of the Karanovo and the Linear Pottery Cultures: a quantitative and qualitative approach. Veget Hist Archaeobot 26, 639–657. 37. Kuča, M. et al. 2009: Lithic raw material procurement in the Moravian Neolithic: the search for extra-regional networks. Documenta Praehistorica 36, 313-326. 38. Kuča, M. et al. 2011: Chronologie neolitu na Moravě: předběžné výsledky. Přeh- led výzkumů 53-1, 51-64.

47 BIBLIOGRAPHY

39. Kuča, M. - Přichystal, A. - Schenk, Z. - Škrdla, P. - Vokáč, M 2009: Lithic raw material procurement in the Moravian Neolithic: the search for extra-regional networks. Documenta Praehistorica 36, 313-326. 40. Lahr, M.M. et al. 2000: Expected regional patterns of Mesolithic-Neolithic human population admixture in Europe based on archaeological evidence. In: Renfrew, C. – Boyle, K. (eds): Archaeogenetics: DNA and the population history of Europe, 81-88. Cambridge: McDonald Institute Monographs. 41. Larson, G., - Fuller, D. 2014: The Evolution of Animal Domestication. Annual Re- view of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 45, 115-136. 42. Lenneis, E. - Stadler, P. 1995: Zur Absolutchronologie der Linearbandkeramik aufgrund von 14C-Daten. Archäologie Österreichs 6.2, 4-12. 43. Lička, M. 2011: Osídlení kultury s lineární keramikou v Kosoři, okr. Praha-západ. Fontes Archaeologici Pragenses 37. 44. Lüning, J. 1988: Frühe Bauern in Mitteleuropa im 6. und 5. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums in Mainz 35, 27–93. 45. Lüning, J. 2007: Bandkeramiker und Vor-Bandkeramiker. Die Entstehung des Neolithikums in Mitteleuropa. In Vor 12.000 Jahren in Anatolien. Die ältesten Monumente der Menschheit, 177–189. Karlsruhe/Stuttgart: Theiss. 46. Magny, M. 2004.: Holocene climate variability as reflected by mid-European lake- level fluctuations and its probable impact on prehistoric human settlements. Quaternary International 113, 65–79. 47. Mateiciucová, I. 2008: Talking Stones: The Chipped Stone Industry in Lower Austria and Moravia and the Beginnings of the Neolithic in Central Europe (LBK), 5700-4900 BC. Dissertationes Archaeologicae Brunenses/Pragensesque 7. Brno. 48. Matoušek, V. 2000: Bacín: 9490±65 BP a 428±37 BP. Nová 14C data z Českého krasu. Archeologie ve středních Čechách 4, 15-30. 49. McClure, S. 2013: Domesticated animals and biodiversity: Early agriculture at the gates of Europe and long-term ecological consequences, Anthropocene 4, 57-68. 50. Mook, W. G. 1978: Groningen Radiocarbondaten. In: Valoch, K: Die end- paläolitische Siedlung in Smolín. Praha, 88-89. 51. Morand, S. – McIntyre, KM. – Baylis. M. 2014: Domesticated animals and human infectious diseases of zoonotic origins: domestication time matters. Infect Genet Evol. 24, 76-81. 52. Nielsen, R. - Beaumont, M. 2009: Statistical inferences in phylogeography. Mo- lecular Ecology 18, 1034–1047. 53. Nikitin, A.G. – Stadler, P. et al. 2019: Interactions between earliest Linearbandke- ramik farmers and central European hunter gatherers at the dawn of European Neolithization. Sci Rep 9, 19544.

48 BIBLIOGRAPHY

54. Neustupný, E. F. - Veselý, K. 1977: Most Radiocarbon Dates I. Radiocarbon 19, 183-187. 55. Oliva, M. 2008: Těžba rohovce v Krumlovském lese. Chert extraction in Krumlov forest. In: Čižmář, Z. (ed.) 2008: Život a smrt v mladší době kamenné. Katalóg výstavy. / Life and Death in the New Stone Age. Exhibition Catalogue. Brno - Znojmo, 144-153. 56. Oross, K. – Siklósi, Zs 2012: Relative and absolute chronology of the Early Neo- lithic in the Great Hungarian Plain. In: Anders, A. - Siklósi, Zs 2012: The First Ne- olithic Sites in Central/South-East European Transect. Volume III. The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary. BAR IS 2334, 129-159. 57. Pavelčík, J. 1992: Příspěvek k absolutnímu datování osady lidu s kanelovanou keramikou v Hlinsku nad Bečvou. Časopis Slezského zemského muzea Série B, 41, 193-195. 58. Pavlů, I. 2000: Life on a Neolithic Site. Bylany - Situational Analysis of Artefacts. Praha. 59. Pavúk, J. 2018: Balkán - Karpatská kotlina - Čechy: kultúrno-chronologický context, In: Živá archeologie. (Re)konstrukce a experiment v archeologii / Hradec Králové : Katedra archeologie Filozofické fakulty Univerzity Hradec Králové Sv. 20. 60. Pettitt, P. - Hedges, R. 2008: The Age of the Vedrovice Cemetery: the AMS Radio- carbon Dating Programme. Anthropologie. International Journal of the Science of Man 46, 125-134. 61. Petrasch, K. 2020: Settlements, migration, and the break of tradition: The settlement patterns of the Earliest Bandkeramik and the LBK and the formation of a neolithic lifestyle in Western Central Europe, Quaternary International 560-561, 248-258. 62. Pokorný, P. - Šída, P. - Novák, J. - Prostředník, J. 2010: Neolitická těžba v Jizerských horách pohledem pylové a antrakologické analýzy. Archeologické Rozhledy 62, 587-607. 63. Prostředník, J. et al. 2005: Neolithic quarrying in the foothills\nNeolithic quarrying in the foothills of the Jizera Mountains and the dating thereof. Archeologické rozhledy 57, 477-492. 64. Quitta, H. 1960. Zur Frage der ältesten Bandkeramik in Mitteleuropa. Praehisto- rische Zeitschrift 38, 1–38 and 153–188. 65. Quitta, H. - Kohl, G. 1969: Neue Radiocarbondaten zum Neolithikum und zur frühen Bronzezeit Südosteuropas und der Sowjetunion. Zeitschrift für Archäolo- gie 3, 223-255. 66. Racomo et. al. 2019: A geostatistical approach to modelling human Holocene migrations in Europe using ancient DNA.

49 BIBLIOGRAPHY

67. Rapuc, W. et al 2019: Holocene-long record of flood frequency in the Southern Alps (Lake Iseo, Italy) under human and climate forcing, Global and Planetary Change vol 175, 160-172. 68. Reich, D. 2018: Who we are and how we got here: ancient dna and the new science of the human past. Oxford University Press. 69. Rivollat, M. et. al. 2020: Ancient genome-wide DNA from France highlights the complexity of interactions between Mesolithic hunter-gatherers and Neolithic farmers, Science Advances 6/22. 70. Rogers, A. - Harpending, H. 1992: Population growth makes waves in the distribution of pairwise genetic differences. Molecular Biology and Evolution 9, 552– 569. 71. Rulf, J. 1983: Přírodní prostředí a kultury českého neolitu a eneolitu. PA 74. 35 – 95. 72. Shennan, S. 2009: Evolutionary demography and the population history of the European early Neolithic. Human biology, 81(2-3), 339–355. 73. Shennan, S. et al. 2013: Regional population collapse followed initial agriculture booms in mid-Holocene Europe. Nat Commun 4, 2486. 74. Shennan, S. 2018: The First Farmers of Europe: An Evolutionary Perspective (Ca- mbridge World Archaeology). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 75. Schier, W. 2015: Central and Eastern Europe, In: Fowler, Ch., Hofman, D. (eds.) 2018: The Oxford Handbook of Neolithic Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 76. Schenk, Z. - Kuča, M. - Škrdla, P. - Roszková, A 2008: Spytihněv (okr. Zlín). Přeh- led výzkumů 49, 226-231. 77. Scheu, A. 2016: Neolithic animal domestication as seen from ancient DNA, Quater- nary International 496, 102-107. 78. Sielmann, B. 1971: Der Einfluss der Umwelt auf die neolithische Besiedlung Südwestdeutschlands unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Verhältnisse am nördlichen Oberrhein. Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica 2, 65–197. 79. Soják, M. 2003: Výskum neolitického sídliska v Spišskej Novej Vsi a Smižanoch, v polohe Smižianska roveň. In: Lutovský, M. (ed.) 2003 Otázky neolitu a eneolitu. Praha, 69-102. 80. Stadler, P. et al. 2000: Status of Austrian Science Fund Project P12253: Absolute Chronology for Early Civilization in Austria and Central Europe Using 14C Da- ting with Accelerator Mass Spectometry. 81. Stone, A.C. 2020: Getting sick in the Neolithic. Nat Ecol Evol 4, 286–287. 82. Svoboda, J. A. (ed.) 2003: Mezolit severních Čech. Komplexní výzkum skalních převisů na Českolipsku a Děčínsku, 1978-2003. Mesolithic of Northern Bohemia. Complex excavation of rockshelters in the Česká Lípa and Děčín areas, 1978- 2003. Dolnověstonické studie/The Dolní Věstonice Studies 9. Brno – Děčín.

50 BIBLIOGRAPHY

83. Šída, P. - Chvojka, O. - Pokorný, P. 2009: Výsledky první etapy výzkumu mezoli- tické lokality Švarcenberk 7 u Ponědrážky (okr. Jindřichův Hradec). Archeolog- ické výzkumy v jižních Čechách 22, 5-16. 84. Šída, P. - Pokorný, P. - Kuneš, P. 2007: Dřevěné artefakty raně holocenního stáří z litorálu zaniklého jezera Švarcenberk. Přehled výzkumů 48, 55-64. 85. Šída, P. - Prostředník, J. - Kuneš, P. 2011: New Radiocarbon Data for the North Bohemian Mesolithic. Interdisciplinaria archaeologica - Natural Sciences in Ar- chaeology 2.2, 151-157. 86. Thomas, M. – Kivisild, T. – Chikhi, L. – Burger, J. 2013: Europe and western Asia: genetics and population history. In: Ness, I. 2014: The global prehistory of human migration, 146-156. 87. Tresset, A. – Vigne, J-D. 2011: Last hunter-gatherers and first farmers of Europe, Comptes Rendus Biologies 334/3, 182-189. 88. Underhill, P. - Kivisild, T. 2007: Use of Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA population structure in tracing human migrations. Annual Review of Genetics 41, 539–564. 89. Vencl, S. et al. 2009: Pravěké osídlení jeskyně Martina, k. ú. Tetín, okr. Beroun. Památky archeologické 100, 5-48. 90. Vogel, J. C. - Waterbolk, H. T. 1967: Groningen Radiocarbon Dates VII. Radiocar- bon 9, 107-155. 91. Vostrovská, I. et al. 2011: Kyjovice (okr. Znojmo). Přehled výzkumů 52-1, 165- 166. 92. Whittle, A. et al. 2013: 4 Moravia and western Slovakia. In: Bickle, P. - Whittle, A. (eds.): The First Farmers of Central Europe: Diversity in LBK Lifeways. . Oxford, 101-158. 93. Williams, A.N. 2012: The use of summed radiocarbon probability distributions in archaeology: a review of methods, Journal of Archaeological Science 39/3, 578- 589. 94. Zápotocký, M. - Zápotocká, M. 2008: Kutná Hora - Denemark. Hradiště řivnáčské kultury (ca 3000-2800 př. Kr.). Památky Archeologické - Supplementum 18. Praha. 95. Zvelebil, M. 2001: The agricultural transition and the origins of Neolithic society in Europe, Documenta Praehistorica 28, 1-26. 96. Zvelebil, M. - Pettitt, P. 2008: Human Condition, Life, and Death at an Early Neo- lithic Settlement: Bioarchaeological Analyses of the Vedrovice Cemetery and Their Biosocial Implications for the Spread of Agriculture in Central Europe. Anthropologie. International Journal of the Science of Man 46, 195-218.

51 [APPENDIX]

Appendix A Database

53 ID Lab_Code Date Sigma Country District Cadastre Site Context_name Context_type Context_structure Context_dating Context_detail 1 1272 6150 35 Czech republic Znojmo Kyjovice Sutny unspecified feature Linear Pottery Culture, phase II (CZ) 2 1275 6210 35 Czech republic Znojmo Kyjovice Sutny unspecified feature Linear Pottery Culture, phase II (CZ) 3 1276 6210 35 Czech republic Znojmo Kyjovice Sutny unspecified feature Linear Pottery Culture, phase II (CZ) Mezőkovácshá 4 BM-1862R 6710 110 Hungary Battonya Basarága III pit Körös Culture refuse pit za 5 BM-1863R 6950 140 Hungary Gyomaendrőd Endrőd 39 IV/I pit Körös Culture 6 BM-1864R 6180 110 Hungary Gyomaendrőd Endrőd 35 III pit Körös Culture refuse pit 7 BM-1865R 6400 170 Hungary Szarvas Szarvas 23 VII/I pit Körös Culture 8 BM-1866R 6780 110 Hungary Szarvas Szarvas 23 IX/I pit Körös Culture

9 BM-1868R 6970 110 Hungary Gyomaendrőd Endrőd 39 I pit Körös Culture

10 BM-1870R 6950 120 Hungary Gyomaendrőd Endrőd 39 I pit Körös Culture

11 BM-1871R 6830 120 Hungary Gyomaendrőd Endrőd 39 I pit Körös Culture 12 BM-561 6038 87 Czech republic Kutná Hora Bylany u Kutné Hory feature 921 oven Linear Pottery Culture

13 BM-562 6184 89 Czech republic Kutná Hora Bylany u Kutné Hory feature 2214 pit house Linear Pottery Culture, Bylany I phase

14 BM-563 6686 53 Czech republic Kutná Hora Bylany u Kutné Hory feature 378 pit house Linear Pottery Culture, Bylany II phase

15 BM-564 5756 51 Czech republic Kutná Hora Bylany u Kutné Hory feature 806 pit house Linear Pottery Culture, Bylany II phase

16 BM-565 6023 77 Czech republic Kutná Hora Bylany u Kutné Hory feature 2101 pit house Linear Pottery Culture, Bylany II phase

17 BM-566 6178 134 Czech republic Kutná Hora Bylany u Kutné Hory feature 11 pit house Linear Pottery Culture, Bylany III phase

18 BM-568 5635 65 Czech republic Kutná Hora Bylany u Kutné Hory feature 1230 pit house Linear Pottery Culture, Bylany IV phase

19 BM-569 6754 96 Czech republic Kutná Hora Bylany u Kutné Hory feature 900 pit house Linear Pottery Culture, Bylany IV phase

feature 54, find 20 Bln-102 6285 100 Czech republic Šumperk Mohelnice U cukrovaru unspecified feature house Linear Pottery Culture, early phase number 17

feature 54, find 21 Bln-102a 6405 100 Czech republic Šumperk Mohelnice U cukrovaru unspecified feature house Linear Pottery Culture, early phase number 17

Hódmezővásár 22 Bln-115 6450 100 Hungary Hódmezővásárhely Kotacpart-Vata-tanya unknown Körös Culture hely 23 Bln-1331 6835 60 Hungary Fehérgyarmat Méhtelek Nádas 1-3/? pit Körös Culture 24 Bln-1332 6655 60 Hungary Fehérgyarmat Méhtelek Nádas 4-5/? pit Körös Culture 25 Bln-1379 6640 60 Hungary Gyomaendrőd Dévaványa Réhelyi gát unknown Körös Culture 26 Bln-1938 7005 80 Hungary Szolnok Szolnok Szanda I/2 pit Körös Culture 27 Bln-1940 6615 60 Hungary Gyomaendrőd Endrőd 35 3 unspecified feature Körös Culture 28 Bln-1941 6785 55 Hungary Gyomaendrőd Endrőd 39 1 unspecified feature Körös Culture 29 Bln-1946 7005 80 Hungary Szolnok Szolnok Szanda unknown Körös Culture 30 Bln-1960 6415 60 Hungary Gyomaendrőd Endrőd 35 unknown Körös Culture 31 Bln-2576 6940 60 Hungary Szolnok Szolnok Szanda 2 pit Körös Culture 32 Bln-2577 6790 70 Hungary Szolnok Szolnok Szanda 5 pit Körös Culture 33 Bln-2578 6800 60 Hungary Berettyóújfalu Szentpéterszeg Körtvélyes 4 pit Körös Culture 34 Bln-304 5775 140 Slovakia Nitra Horné Lefantovce Na babe 6 oven Linear Pottery Culture, Želiezovce phase Nad Staňkovnou, 35 Bln-3759 6080 60 Czech republic Praha-Západ Kosoř feature 68 pit Linear Pottery Culture, phase II (CZ) pieskovňa

Ústí Nad 36 Bln-437 5070 200 Czech republic Chabařovice pit 58/A pit house Linear Pottery Culture, early phase Labem

Ústí Nad 37 Bln-438 6400 120 Czech republic Chabařovice pit 48/B pit house Linear Pottery Culture, early phase Labem

Bošáca Culture 38 Bln-4425 5984 41 Slovakia Nitra Jelšovce 70 grave burial Linear Pottery Culture, Želiezovce phase

39 Bln-557 5565 120 Slovakia Nové Zámky Štúrovo 215/66 pit Linear Pottery Culture, Želiezovce phase storage pit

40 Bln-558 6170 100 Slovakia Nové Zámky Štúrovo 229/66 pit Linear Pottery Culture, Želiezovce phase storage pit 41 Bln-559 6260 100 Slovakia Nové Zámky Štúrovo 313/66 pit Linear Pottery Culture, Želiezovce phase storage pit

42 Bln-57 6430 100 Czech republic Kroměříž Holešov Brickyard pit house Linear Pottery Culture, phase Ia (CZ)

43 Bln-581 6605 100 Hungary Szeged Deszk Olajkút 8 pit Körös Culture 44 Bln-582 6260 100 Hungary Szeged Deszk Olajkút 15 pit Körös Culture 45 Bln-582a 6390 100 Hungary Szeged Deszk Olajkút 15 pit Körös Culture 46 Bln-583 6410 120 Hungary Szeged Deszk Olajkút 15 pit Körös Culture 47 Bln-584 6540 100 Hungary Szeged Deszk Olajkút 8 pit Körös Culture

48 Bln-74 5225 100 Czech republic Hradec Králové Nový Bydžov unspecified feature Linear Pottery Culture

49 Bln-75 7090 100 Hungary Szeged Szeged Szilágyi major pit Körös Culture

50 Bln-86 6370 100 Hungary Gyomaendrőd Dévaványa Katalszeg pit Körös Culture

Na dílech, Cave No. 1309 - 51 CU, No. 25/01 4445 301 Czech republic Beroun Tetín layer Linear Pottery Culture cultural layer Martina

Na dílech, Cave No. 1309 - 52 CU, No. 26/01 5010 173 Czech republic Beroun Tetín layer Linear Pottery Culture cultural layer Martina

Na dílech, Cave No. 1309 - 53 CU, No. 28/01 8338 570 Czech republic Beroun Tetín layer Mesolithic cultural layer Martina

Na dílech, Cave No. 1309 - 54 CU, No. 29/01 6768 436 Czech republic Beroun Tetín layer Mesolithic cultural layer Martina

Na dílech, Cave No. 1309 - Mesolithic 55 CU, No. 31/01 6204 420 Czech republic Beroun Tetín layer cultural layer Martina Neolithic

Na dílech, Cave No. 1309 - 56 CU, No. 32/01 7282 514 Czech republic Beroun Tetín layer Mesolithic cultural layer Martina Jindřichův 57 Crl-6093 9639 112 Czech republic Ponědrážka former Lake Švarcenberk layer Mesolithic Hradec Kristova jeskyně (Kristova 58 Crl-7025 7383 96 Czech republic Semily Mírová pod Kozákovem 5 hearth Late Mesolithic cave)

59 Deb-11804 6740 60 Hungary Tiszafüred Tiszaszőlős Domaháza-puszta 2 grave burial Körös Culture

60 Deb-11890 6920 50 Hungary Tiszafüred Tiszaszőlős Domaháza-puszta 6 pit Körös Culture

61 Deb-11902 6780 65 Hungary Tiszafüred Tiszaszőlős Domaháza-puszta 6 pit Körös Culture

62 Deb-2730 6972 59 Hungary Szeged Röszke Lúdvár unspecified feature Körös Culture 63 Deb-2733 7497 56 Hungary Makó Maroslele Pana 4 pit Körös Culture 64 Deb-396 7050 200 Hungary Szarvas Szarvas 56 I ditch Körös Culture 65 Deb-408 6580 180 Hungary Gyomaendrőd Endrőd 6 1 grave burial Körös Culture 66 Deb-413 6960 220 Hungary Kalocsa Szakmár Kisülés XXIV unspecified feature Körös Culture

67 Deb-450 6240 190 Hungary Gyomaendrőd Endrőd 6 unspecified feature Körös Culture

68 Deb-473 7100 230 Hungary Szolnok Szajol Felsőföld 3 pit Körös Culture 69 Deb-474 6430 220 Hungary Szolnok Szajol Felsőföld unspecified feature burial Körös Culture

70 ETH-11121 6265 55 Austria Mödling Brunn am Gebirge Wolfholz I083 - W unspecified feature Linear Pottery Culture, phase I (CZ)

71 ETH-11122 6520 55 Austria Mödling Brunn am Gebirge Wolfholz I090 - NO unspecified feature Linear Pottery Culture, phase I (CZ)

72 ETH-11123 6260 70 Austria Mödling Brunn am Gebirge Wolfholz 0089S unspecified feature Linear Pottery Culture, phase I (CZ)

73 ETH-11124 6470 55 Austria Mödling Brunn am Gebirge Wolfholz 51 unspecified feature Linear Pottery Culture, phase I (CZ)

74 ETH-11125 6235 70 Austria Mödling Brunn am Gebirge Wolfholz I083P unspecified feature Linear Pottery Culture, phase I (CZ)

75 ETH-11126 6150 75 Austria Mödling Brunn am Gebirge Wolfholz I140WP1/S unspecified feature Linear Pottery Culture, phase I (CZ)

76 ETH-11127 6520 50 Austria Mödling Brunn am Gebirge Wolfholz 51 unspecified feature Linear Pottery Culture, phase I (CZ)

77 ETH-11128 6360 60 Austria Mödling Brunn am Gebirge Wolfholz 51 unspecified feature Linear Pottery Culture, phase I (CZ)

78 ETH-11129 6265 75 Austria Mödling Brunn am Gebirge Wolfholz 0054NP1/S unspecified feature Linear Pottery Culture, phase I (CZ)

79 ETH-11130 6365 55 Austria Mödling Brunn am Gebirge Wolfholz I189-SO unspecified feature Linear Pottery Culture, phase I (CZ)

80 ETH-11131 6485 80 Austria Mödling Brunn am Gebirge Wolfholz 0114 O1 unspecified feature Linear Pottery Culture, phase I (CZ)

81 ETH-11132 6320 65 Austria Mödling Brunn am Gebirge Wolfholz 0123-O2 unspecified feature Linear Pottery Culture, phase I (CZ)

82 ETH-11133 6395 75 Austria Mödling Brunn am Gebirge Wolfholz 54 unspecified feature Linear Pottery Culture, phase I (CZ)

83 ETH-11134 6325 70 Austria Mödling Brunn am Gebirge Wolfholz 0088W3P2/3 unspecified feature Linear Pottery Culture, phase I (CZ)

84 ETH-11137 6285 70 Austria Mödling Brunn am Gebirge Wolfholz 0100AProf unspecified feature Linear Pottery Culture, phase I (CZ)

85 ETH-11138 6390 65 Austria Mödling Brunn am Gebirge Wolfholz 145 unspecified feature Linear Pottery Culture, phase I (CZ)

86 ETH-11139 6470 75 Austria Mödling Brunn am Gebirge Wolfholz 0149A unspecified feature Linear Pottery Culture, phase I (CZ)

87 ETH-11140 6265 70 Austria Mödling Brunn am Gebirge Wolfholz 0151F unspecified feature Linear Pottery Culture, phase I (CZ)

88 ETH-11141 6660 75 Austria Mödling Brunn am Gebirge Wolfholz 166 unspecified feature Linear Pottery Culture, phase I (CZ)

89 ETH-11143 6505 75 Austria Mödling Brunn am Gebirge Wolfholz 0180C unspecified feature Linear Pottery Culture, phase I (CZ) 90 ETH-11145 6480 70 Austria Mödling Brunn am Gebirge Wolfholz 1000P5/6 unspecified feature Linear Pottery Culture, phase I (CZ)

91 ETH-11146 6315 70 Austria Mödling Brunn am Gebirge Wolfholz 3 grave burial Linear Pottery Culture, phase I (CZ)

92 ETH-11147 6365 70 Austria Mödling Brunn am Gebirge Wolfholz 3 grave burial Linear Pottery Culture, phase I (CZ)

93 ETH-11148 6785 75 Austria Mödling Brunn am Gebirge Wolfholz 721 unspecified feature Linear Pottery Culture, phase I (CZ)

94 ETH-11149 6335 70 Austria Mödling Brunn am Gebirge Wolfholz 3 grave burial Linear Pottery Culture, phase I (CZ)

95 ETH-11150 6360 70 Austria Mödling Brunn am Gebirge Wolfholz 3 grave burial Linear Pottery Culture, phase I (CZ)

96 ETH-13537 6565 85 Austria Mödling Brunn am Gebirge Wolfholz 1202 B unspecified feature Linear Pottery Culture, phase I (CZ)

97 ETH-13538 6605 85 Austria Mödling Brunn am Gebirge Wolfholz 1216 E unspecified feature Linear Pottery Culture, phase I (CZ)

98 ETH-14373 6025 55 Austria Mistelbach Asparn an der Zaya Schletz pit Linear Pottery Culture, phase III (CZ) 99 ETH-14374 6145 55 Austria Mistelbach Asparn an der Zaya Schletz pit Linear Pottery Culture, phase III (CZ) 100 ETH-14827 6460 70 Austria Mödling Brunn am Gebirge Wolfholz 2 grave burial Linear Pottery Culture, phase I (CZ)

feature 101 ? 5910 40 Czech republic Semily Turnov Maškovy zahrady unspecified feature house Linear Pottery Culture 1002/01

102 ? 6160 40 Czech republic Semily Turnov Maškovy zahrady feature 928/01 pit Linear Pottery Culture

103 ? 6360 40 Czech republic Semily Turnov Maškovy zahrady feature 929/01 pit house Linear Pottery Culture

Linear Pottery Culture, phase II (CZ) Linear Pottery Culture, phase III (CZ) Jablonec Nad Linear Pottery Culture, phase IV (CZ) 104 GdA-1206 6220 40 Czech republic Velké Hamry Velké Hamry II 1 pit Nisou Stroke-Ornamented Ware Culture, phase I Stroke-Ornamented Ware Culture, phase II Stroke-Ornamented Ware Culture, phase III

Rock shelter of dr. A. 105 GdA-1207 8060 40 Czech republic Semily Troskovice unspecified feature rock shelter Early Mesolithic Nastoupilová

106 GdA-531 8480 50 Czech republic Semily Hrubá skála Hlavatá skála hearth rock shelter Early Mesolithic Linear Pottery Culture, phase II (CZ) Linear Pottery Culture, phase III (CZ) Jablonec Nad Linear Pottery Culture, phase IV (CZ) 107 GdA-533 6095 35 Czech republic Pěnčín Pěnčín-Jistebsko I 1 pit Nisou Stroke-Ornamented Ware Culture, phase I Stroke-Ornamented Ware Culture, phase II Stroke-Ornamented Ware Culture, phase III Kristova jeskyně (Kristova 108 GdA-975 6900 40 Czech republic Semily Mírová pod Kozákovem 4 hearth Late Mesolithic cave) Kristova jeskyně (Kristova 109 GdA-976 7440 40 Czech republic Semily Mírová pod Kozákovem 5a hearth Late Mesolithic cave) Kristova jeskyně (Kristova 110 GdA-977 7130 40 Czech republic Semily Mírová pod Kozákovem 6 hearth Late Mesolithic cave) Kristova jeskyně (Kristova 111 GdA-978 7440 40 Czech republic Semily Mírová pod Kozákovem 8 pit Late Mesolithic cave)

112 GdA-979 8630 50 Czech republic Semily Karlovice Abri pod Pradědem O hearth rock shelter Early Mesolithic

113 GdA-980 7280 40 Czech republic Semily Karlovice Abri pod Pradědem R hearth rock shelter Late Mesolithic

114 GrA-11455 7620 80 Czech republic Česká Lípa Dubá Pod Černou Louží layer rock shelter Early Mesolithic cultural layer

Šídelník, Šídelník I (Rock 115 GrA-11456 7120 80 Czech republic Česká Lípa Dubá layer 4 layer Early Mesolithic cultural layer shelter I)

116 GrA-19156 7770 70 Czech republic Děčín Jetřichovice Dolský Mlýn (Grundmühle) hearth rock shelter Late Mesolithic

117 GrA-19157 6910 60 Czech republic Děčín Jetřichovice Dolský Mlýn (Grundmühle) layer rock shelter Late Mesolithic cultural layer

Okrouhlík, Okrouhlík I 118 GrA-19158 7300 60 Czech republic Děčín Růžová hearth Early Mesolithic (Rock shelter I)

Okrouhlík, Okrouhlík II 119 GrA-19161 7940 70 Czech republic Děčín Růžová hearth Early Mesolithic (Rock shelter II)

Okrouhlík, Okrouhlík I 120 GrA-19162 8680 70 Czech republic Děčín Růžová pit Early Mesolithic (Rock shelter I)

Okrouhlík, Okrouhlík I 121 GrA-19163 9170 70 Czech republic Děčín Růžová pit Early Mesolithic (Rock shelter I)

Brno-Venkov 122 GrA-34410 9410 50 Czech republic Krumlovský les II-12 shaft Early Mesolithic mine shaft And Znojmo Brno-Venkov 123 GrA-38110 6775 40 Czech republic Krumlovský les II-12 shaft Early Mesolithic mine shaft And Znojmo

124 GrA-422 6170 30 Austria Horn Rosenburg 242-077 pit Linear Pottery Culture, phase II (CZ) 125 GrA-423 6140 30 Austria Horn Rosenburg 242-004 pit Linear Pottery Culture, phase II (CZ) 126 GrA-449 6280 50 Austria Horn Rosenburg 198-219 pit Linear Pottery Culture, phase I (CZ) 127 GrA-454 6420 30 Austria Horn Rosenburg 198-015 pit Linear Pottery Culture, phase I (CZ) 128 GrA-456 6250 30 Austria Horn Rosenburg 198-094, 106 pit Linear Pottery Culture, phase I (CZ) 129 GrA-458 6270 30 Austria Horn Rosenburg 198-134 pit Linear Pottery Culture, phase I (CZ) 130 GrA-649 6100 60 Austria Horn Rosenburg 242-025, 75 pit Linear Pottery Culture, phase II (CZ) Linear Pottery Culture, late phase 131 GrN-13150 6290 45 Czech republic Opava Velké Hoštice 48/83 unspecified feature Linear Pottery Culture, Želiezovce phase 132 GrN-19909 6625 130 Austria Horn Rosenburg 198-188 pit Linear Pottery Culture, phase I (CZ) 133 GrN-19914 6330 30 Austria Horn Rosenburg 198-247 pit Linear Pottery Culture, phase I (CZ)

Máselník (Butterberg), 134 GrN-21556 8560 70 Czech republic Česká Lípa Dubá layer 6 layer Early Mesolithic cultural layer Máselník I (Rock shelter I)

Máselník (Butterberg), 135 GrN-21557 8790 70 Czech republic Česká Lípa Dubá layer 7 layer Early Mesolithic cultural layer Máselník I (Rock shelter I)

Černá Louže (Schwarze 136 GrN-21558 7950 80 Czech republic Česká Lípa Dubá hearth rock shelter Early Mesolithic Pfütze)

137 GrN-23331 8160 80 Czech republic Česká Lípa Kvítkov Pod křídlem layer rock shelter Early Mesolithic cultural layer

138 GrN-23332 6790 70 Czech republic Česká Lípa Česká Lípa Pod zubem hearth rock shelter Late Mesolithic

139 GrN-23333 6580 50 Czech republic Česká Lípa Česká Lípa Pod zubem layer rock shelter Late Mesolithic cultural layer

140 GrN-23334 8110 240 Czech republic Česká Lípa Česká Lípa Pod zubem layer rock shelter Early Mesolithic cultural layer 141 GrN-23335 7660 130 Czech republic Česká Lípa Česká Lípa Pod zubem layer rock shelter Early Mesolithic cultural layer

142 GrN-24210 10160 190 Czech republic Česká Lípa Dubá Nízká Lešnice layer rock shelter Early Mesolithic cultural layer

Šídelník, Šídelník I (Rock 143 GrN-24213 7830 170 Czech republic Česká Lípa Dubá layer 5 layer Early Mesolithic cultural layer shelter I)

Šídelník, Šídelník III (Rock 144 GrN-24214 8300 150 Czech republic Česká Lípa Dubá layer 5 hearth Early Mesolithic shelter III)

145 GrN-24217 7930 160 Czech republic Česká Lípa Dubá Vysoká Lešnice layer rock shelter Early Mesolithic cultural layer

Švédův převis (Švédův rock 146 GrN-25170 8180 110 Czech republic Děčín Doubice layer Early Mesolithic shelter)

Jezevčí převis (Jezevčí Rock 147 GrN-25171 8530 150 Czech republic Děčín Doubice layer 7 hearth Early Mesolithic shelter)

148 GrN-25772 6930 120 Czech republic Česká Lípa Bezděz Západní vyhlídka layer rock shelter Late Mesolithic cultural layer

Uhelná rokle (Kohlgrund), 149 GrN-25776 8410 65 Czech republic Česká Lípa Ralsko layer Early Mesolithic cultural layer Uhelná rokle II

150 GrN-26557 6720 120 Czech republic Děčín Jetřichovice Dolský Mlýn (Grundmühle) layer rock shelter Late Mesolithic cultural layer

151 GrN-26558 7020 50 Czech republic Děčín Jetřichovice Dolský Mlýn (Grundmühle) hearth rock shelter Late Mesolithic

Linear Pottery Culture, phase II (CZ) 152 GrN-4752 6170 45 Czech republic Kutná Hora Bylany u Kutné Hory 501 pit Linear Pottery Culture, phase I (CZ) Linear Pottery Culture, phase II (CZ) 153 GrN-4754 6270 65 Czech republic Kutná Hora Bylany u Kutné Hory 687 pit Linear Pottery Culture, phase IV (CZ) Linear Pottery Culture, phase III (CZ) 154 GrN-4755 6180 45 Czech republic Kutná Hora Bylany u Kutné Hory oven 441 oven Linear Pottery Culture, phase IV (CZ)

155 GrN-6610 6240 65 Czech republic Šumperk Mohelnice feature CCLIV well Linear Pottery Culture, early phase

156 GrN-6897 6625 50 Hungary Fehérgyarmat Méhtelek Nádas 4-5/? pit Körös Culture 157 GrN-7622E 11450 60 Czech republic Brno-Venkov Pohořelice layer Mesolithic 158 GrN-7622R 8315 55 Czech republic Brno-Venkov Pohořelice layer Mesolithic 159 H-1765/1401 6460 305 Czech republic Brno-Venkov Pohořelice layer Mesolithic 160 H-1766/1297 4395 75 Czech republic Brno-Venkov Pohořelice layer Mesolithic

161 Hd ? 6315 35 Austria Mödling Brunn am Gebirge Wolfholz I140W unspecified feature Linear Pottery Culture, phase I (CZ)

162 Hd ? 6135 23 Austria Mödling Brunn am Gebirge Wolfholz I189-SO unspecified feature Linear Pottery Culture, phase I (CZ)

163 Hd ? 6060 40 Austria Mödling Brunn am Gebirge Wolfholz I090-O unspecified feature Linear Pottery Culture, phase I (CZ)

Hulín-Pravčice 2 - Višňovce 164 KIA-34736 6215 30 Czech republic Kroměříž Pravčice 1360 unspecified feature Linear Pottery Culture 2007-2008 165 LJ-2032 6200 300 Czech republic Kutná Hora Bylany u Kutné Hory feature 733 pit Linear Pottery Culture, phase II (CZ) 166 LJ-2037 6300 300 Czech republic Kutná Hora Bylany u Kutné Hory feature 685c pit Linear Pottery Culture, phase IV (CZ)

167 LJ-2040 6300 300 Czech republic Mladá Boleslav Mnichovo Hradiště feature 330 pit Linear Pottery Culture, phase IV (CZ)

features 2717 168 M-1896 6250 230 Czech republic Kutná Hora Bylany u Kutné Hory oven Linear Pottery Culture, early phase and 2718

169 M-1897 6320 230 Czech republic Kutná Hora Bylany u Kutné Hory feature 2218 oven Linear Pottery Culture

170 OxA-29051 6320 30 Hungary Szederkény-Kukorica dulő grave Vinča Culture

171 MOC-70+91 6220 80 Czech republic Šumperk Mohelnice feature CCLIV well Linear Pottery Culture, early phase

172 MOC-91 6330 140 Czech republic Šumperk Mohelnice feature CCLIV well Linear Pottery Culture, early phase

173 ? 5625 40 Czech republic Znojmo Kyjovice Sutny unspecified feature Linear Pottery Culture, phase II (CZ)

174 OxA-10148 6665 50 Hungary Gyomaendrőd Ecsegfalva 23 23B ditch Körös Culture

175 OxA-10149 6845 50 Hungary Makó Maroslele Pana 3 grave burial Körös Culture

176 OxA-10500 6900 60 Hungary Gyomaendrőd Ecsegfalva 23 390 pit Körös Culture

177 OxA-10501 6885 50 Hungary Gyomaendrőd Ecsegfalva 23 390 pit Körös Culture

178 OxA-10505 6845 50 Hungary Gyomaendrőd Ecsegfalva 23 23C ditch Körös Culture

179 OxA-11845 6865 40 Hungary Gyomaendrőd Ecsegfalva 23 23B ditch Körös Culture

180 OxA-11849 6660 40 Hungary Gyomaendrőd Ecsegfalva 23 393 pit Körös Culture

181 OxA-11850 6780 50 Hungary Gyomaendrőd Ecsegfalva 23 390 pit Körös Culture

182 OxA-11863 6825 45 Hungary Gyomaendrőd Ecsegfalva 23 23A ditch Körös Culture

183 OxA-11868 6750 45 Hungary Gyomaendrőd Ecsegfalva 23 393 pit Körös Culture

184 OxA-11871 6930 40 Hungary Gyomaendrőd Ecsegfalva 23 23A ditch Körös Culture

185 OxA-11982 6806 39 Hungary Gyomaendrőd Ecsegfalva 23 23B ditch Körös Culture

186 OxA-11983 6915 36 Hungary Gyomaendrőd Ecsegfalva 23 23A ditch Körös Culture 187 OxA-11984 6893 36 Hungary Gyomaendrőd Ecsegfalva 23 23C ditch Körös Culture

188 OxA-12140 6729 32 Hungary Gyomaendrőd Ecsegfalva 23 23B ditch Körös Culture 189 OxA-12654 6889 36 Hungary Gyomaendrőd Ecsegfalva 23 393 pit Körös Culture

190 OxA-12655 6830 35 Hungary Gyomaendrőd Ecsegfalva 23 393 pit Körös Culture

191 OxA-12854 6774 45 Hungary Gyomaendrőd Ecsegfalva 23 23B ditch Körös Culture

192 OxA-12855 6596 42 Hungary Gyomaendrőd Ecsegfalva 23 390 pit Körös Culture

193 OxA-12857 7944 44 Hungary Gyomaendrőd Ecsegfalva 23 23B ditch Körös Culture

194 OxA-12858 6782 42 Hungary Gyomaendrőd Ecsegfalva 23 23B ditch Körös Culture

195 OxA-12859 6818 44 Hungary Gyomaendrőd Ecsegfalva 23 23B ditch Körös Culture

196 OxA-12860 6826 41 Hungary Gyomaendrőd Ecsegfalva 23 23C ditch Körös Culture

197 OxA-13510 6731 43 Hungary Gyomaendrőd Ecsegfalva 23 23B ditch Körös Culture

198 OxA-13511 6785 45 Hungary Gyomaendrőd Ecsegfalva 23 23B ditch Körös Culture

199 OxA-15131 6266 36 Czech republic Znojmo Vedrovice Široká u lesa 62/78 grave burial Linear Pottery Culture, phase Ib1 (CZ) 200 OxA-15362 6375 50 Czech republic Znojmo Vedrovice Široká u lesa 90/80 grave burial Linear Pottery Culture 201 OxA-15363 6305 40 Czech republic Znojmo Vedrovice Široká u lesa 91/80 grave burial Linear Pottery Culture, phase Ib1 (CZ) 202 OxA-15364 6182 35 Czech republic Znojmo Vedrovice Široká u lesa 101/81 grave burial Linear Pottery Culture 203 OxA-15365 6141 34 Czech republic Znojmo Vedrovice Široká u lesa 106/82 grave burial Linear Pottery Culture, phase IIa (CZ) 204 OxA-15366 6159 35 Czech republic Znojmo Vedrovice Široká u lesa 28/76 grave burial Linear Pottery Culture 205 OxA-15367 6219 35 Czech republic Znojmo Vedrovice Široká u lesa 30/76 grave burial Linear Pottery Culture, phase Ib1 (CZ) 206 OxA-15368 6146 34 Czech republic Znojmo Vedrovice Široká u lesa 43/77 grave burial Linear Pottery Culture 207 OxA-15369 6216 36 Czech republic Znojmo Vedrovice Široká u lesa 44/77 grave burial Linear Pottery Culture 208 OxA-15370 6234 36 Czech republic Znojmo Vedrovice Široká u lesa 81b/79 grave burial Linear Pottery Culture 209 OxA-15384 6199 37 Czech republic Znojmo Vedrovice Široká u lesa 23/75 grave burial Linear Pottery Culture 210 OxA-15385 6332 37 Czech republic Znojmo Vedrovice Široká u lesa 37/76 grave burial Linear Pottery Culture, phase Ib1 (CZ) 211 OxA-15386 6300 36 Czech republic Znojmo Vedrovice Široká u lesa 38/76 grave burial Linear Pottery Culture 212 OxA-15387 6160 35 Czech republic Znojmo Vedrovice Široká u lesa 57/78 grave burial Linear Pottery Culture 213 OxA-15388 6246 36 Czech republic Znojmo Vedrovice Široká u lesa 59/78 grave burial Linear Pottery Culture 214 OxA-15424 6263 34 Czech republic Znojmo Vedrovice Široká u lesa 71/79 grave burial Linear Pottery Culture 215 OxA-15425 6298 34 Czech republic Znojmo Vedrovice Široká u lesa 77/79 grave burial Linear Pottery Culture, phase Ib2 (CZ) 216 OxA-15426 6272 37 Czech republic Znojmo Vedrovice Široká u lesa 99/81 grave burial Linear Pottery Culture, phase Ib (CZ) 217 OxA-1527 6280 38 Czech republic Znojmo Vedrovice Široká u lesa 22/75 grave burial Linear Pottery Culture 218 OxA-15428 6253 36 Czech republic Znojmo Vedrovice Široká u lesa 31/76 grave burial Linear Pottery Culture 219 OxA-15429 6268 37 Czech republic Znojmo Vedrovice Široká u lesa 72/79 grave burial Linear Pottery Culture, phase Ib (CZ) 220 OxA-15430 6407 37 Czech republic Znojmo Vedrovice Široká u lesa 90/80 grave burial Linear Pottery Culture 221 OxA-15431 6224 36 Czech republic Znojmo Vedrovice Široká u lesa 96/80 grave burial Linear Pottery Culture 222 OxA-15432 6108 36 Czech republic Znojmo Vedrovice Široká u lesa 50/77 grave burial Linear Pottery Culture, phase IIa (CZ) 223 OxA-15433 6069 36 Czech republic Znojmo Vedrovice Široká u lesa 50/77 grave burial Linear Pottery Culture, phase IIa (CZ) feature 179/3 224 OxA-15553 6410 65 Czech republic Znojmo Vedrovice Široká u lesa unspecified feature Linear Pottery Culture 2D 0-20, 2000 225 OxA-16617 6240 45 Czech republic Znojmo Vedrovice Široká u lesa 54/78 grave burial Linear Pottery Culture, phase Ib1 (CZ) 226 OxA-16618 6251 39 Czech republic Znojmo Vedrovice Široká u lesa 66/78 grave burial Linear Pottery Culture, phase IIa (CZ) 227 OxA-16619 6169 38 Czech republic Znojmo Vedrovice Široká u lesa 73/79 grave burial Linear Pottery Culture 228 OxA-16620 6289 37 Czech republic Znojmo Vedrovice Široká u lesa 75/79 grave burial Linear Pottery Culture 229 OxA-16621 6244 40 Czech republic Znojmo Vedrovice Široká u lesa 79/79 grave burial Linear Pottery Culture, phase Ib1 (CZ) 230 OxA-16622 6250 40 Czech republic Znojmo Vedrovice Široká u lesa 82/79 grave burial Linear Pottery Culture 231 OxA-16623 6297 38 Czech republic Znojmo Vedrovice Široká u lesa 84/80 grave burial Linear Pottery Culture 232 OxA-16624 6226 37 Czech republic Znojmo Vedrovice Široká u lesa 93a/80 grave burial Linear Pottery Culture 233 OxA-16625 6195 35 Czech republic Znojmo Vedrovice Široká u lesa 102/81 grave burial Linear Pottery Culture

234 OxA-16626 6249 36 Czech republic Znojmo Vedrovice Široká u lesa 104/81 grave burial Linear Pottery Culture

235 OxA-16627 6220 36 Czech republic Znojmo Vedrovice Široká u lesa 105/81 grave burial Linear Pottery Culture 236 OxA-16628 6125 37 Czech republic Znojmo Vedrovice Široká u lesa 107/82 grave burial Linear Pottery Culture 237 OxA-16629 6175 37 Czech republic Znojmo Vedrovice Široká u lesa 107/82 grave burial Linear Pottery Culture 238 OxA-16650 6299 35 Czech republic Znojmo Vedrovice Široká u lesa 15/75 grave burial Linear Pottery Culture, phase Ib1 (CZ) 239 OxA-16651 6164 35 Czech republic Znojmo Vedrovice Široká u lesa 16/75 grave burial Linear Pottery Culture 240 OxA-16652 6248 35 Czech republic Znojmo Vedrovice Široká u lesa 48/77 grave burial Linear Pottery Culture 241 OxA-16653 6290 37 Czech republic Znojmo Vedrovice Široká u lesa 48/77 grave burial Linear Pottery Culture

Brno-Venkov 242 OxA-18595 6612 32 Czech republic Krumlovský les pit Early Mesolithic mine pit And Znojmo

243 OxA-20237 6776 34 Hungary Tiszafüred Tiszaszőlős Domaháza-puszta 6 pit Körös Culture

244 OxA-20238 6789 37 Hungary Tiszafüred Tiszaszőlős Domaháza-puszta 6 pit Körös Culture

245 OxA-20239 6775 40 Hungary Tiszafüred Tiszaszőlős Domaháza-puszta 6 pit Körös Culture

246 OxA-23752 6554 32 Hungary Szolnok Szolnok Szanda 1 grave burial Körös Culture 247 OxA-23753 6688 35 Hungary Szolnok Szolnok Szanda 2 grave burial Körös Culture 248 OxA-23754 6859 34 Hungary Szolnok Szolnok Szanda 3 grave burial Körös Culture 249 OxA-23755 6713 32 Hungary Szolnok Szolnok Szanda 4 grave burial Körös Culture 250 OxA-23756 6713 33 Hungary Szolnok Szolnok Szanda 5 pit Körös Culture

Linear Pottery Culture, phase II 251 OxA-24095 6298 33 Slovakia Nitra Nitra 2/64 grave burial Linear Pottery Culture, developed phase (Notenkopf)

252 OxA-24575 6226 36 Slovakia Nitra Nitra 6/64 grave burial Linear Pottery Culture, Želiezovce phase

Linear Pottery Culture, phase II 253 OxA-24577 6216 36 Slovakia Nitra Nitra 25/65 grave burial Linear Pottery Culture, developed phase (Notenkopf)

254 OxA-24579 6317 34 Slovakia Nitra Nitra 35/65 grave burial Linear Pottery Culture, Želiezovce phase

255 OxA-24580 6227 35 Slovakia Nitra Nitra 36/65 grave burial Linear Pottery Culture, Želiezovce phase

256 OxA-24581 6083 35 Slovakia Nitra Nitra 66/65 grave burial Linear Pottery Culture, Želiezovce phase

Linear Pottery Culture, phase II 257 OxA-24582 6328 36 Slovakia Nitra Nitra 70/65 grave burial Linear Pottery Culture, developed phase (Notenkopf)

258 OxA-9271 9490 65 Czech republic Beroun Vinařice Bacín hill layer burial Mesolithic

259 OxA-9325 6690 50 Hungary Gyomaendrőd Ecsegfalva 23 23B ditch Körös Culture

260 OxA-9327 6870 50 Hungary Gyomaendrőd Ecsegfalva 23 23B ditch Körös Culture 261 OxA-9328 6815 50 Hungary Gyomaendrőd Ecsegfalva 23 23B ditch Körös Culture 262 OxA-9329 6950 45 Hungary Gyomaendrőd Ecsegfalva 23 23B ditch Körös Culture 263 OxA-9330 6795 50 Hungary Gyomaendrőd Ecsegfalva 23 23B ditch Körös Culture 264 OxA-9331 6815 45 Hungary Gyomaendrőd Ecsegfalva 23 23B ditch Körös Culture 265 OxA-9332 6810 45 Hungary Gyomaendrőd Ecsegfalva 23 23B ditch Körös Culture

266 OxA-9333 6860 45 Hungary Gyomaendrőd Ecsegfalva 23 390 pit Körös Culture

267 OxA-9334 6855 50 Hungary Gyomaendrőd Ecsegfalva 23 23A ditch Körös Culture 268 OxA-9335 6920 50 Hungary Gyomaendrőd Ecsegfalva 23 23A ditch Körös Culture 269 OxA-9336 7060 45 Hungary Makó Pitvaros Víztározó 3/B pit Körös Culture 270 OxA-9375 6855 55 Hungary Szarvas Szarvas 23 1 grave burial Körös Culture Körös Culture Körös Culture 271 OxA-9376 6225 55 Hungary Szeged Deszk Olajkút 5 grave burial Körös Culture Körös Culture 272 OxA-9392 6885 50 Hungary Makó Pitvaros Víztározó 1 unspecified feature Körös Culture 273 OxA-9393 6940 50 Hungary Makó Pitvaros Víztározó 3/04 unspecified feature Körös Culture 274 OxA-9395 6595 50 Hungary Gyomaendrőd Endrőd Varnyai-tanya grave burial Körös Culture Körös Culture Körös Culture 275 OxA-9396 7030 50 Hungary Szeged Deszk Olajkút 6 grave burial Körös Culture Körös Culture 276 OxA-9399 6965 50 Hungary Makó Maroslele Pana 1 grave burial Körös Culture 277 OxA-9400 6740 50 Hungary Makó Maroslele Pana 3 grave burial Körös Culture 278 OxA-9401 6780 50 Hungary Makó Maroslele Pana 5 grave burial Körös Culture 279 OxA-9403 7765 55 Hungary Makó Maroslele Pana 7 grave burial Körös Culture 280 OxA-9526 6915 50 Hungary Gyomaendrőd Ecsegfalva 23 23B ditch Körös Culture Körös Culture Körös Culture 281 OxA-9582 6825 45 Hungary Gyomaendrőd Endrőd 119 pit Körös Culture Körös Culture Körös Culture Körös Culture 282 OxA-9583 6895 45 Hungary Gyomaendrőd Endrőd 119 pit ash pit Körös Culture Körös Culture Körös Culture Körös Culture 283 OxA-9584 6825 45 Hungary Gyomaendrőd Endrőd 119 unspecified feature house Körös Culture Körös Culture Körös Culture Körös Culture 284 OxA-9585 6795 50 Hungary Gyomaendrőd Endrőd 119 unspecified feature house Körös Culture Körös Culture Körös Culture Körös Culture 285 OxA-9586 6850 45 Hungary Gyomaendrőd Endrőd 119 unspecified feature house Körös Culture Körös Culture

286 OxA-9587 6915 45 Hungary Gyomaendrőd Endrőd 119 pit Körös Culture ash pit

287 OxA-9588 6855 45 Hungary Gyomaendrőd Endrőd 119 pit Körös Culture ash pit

288 OxA-9589 6720 45 Hungary Gyomaendrőd Endrőd 119 1 pit Körös Culture

Körös Culture Körös Culture 289 OxA-9590 6815 50 Hungary Gyomaendrőd Endrőd 119 pit Körös Culture Körös Culture 290 OxA-X-2040-07 6787 37 Hungary Gyomaendrőd Ecsegfalva 23 23B ditch Körös Culture 291 OxA-X-2040-08 6775 37 Hungary Gyomaendrőd Ecsegfalva 23 23B ditch Körös Culture

292 OxA-X-2040-09 6780 39 Hungary Gyomaendrőd Ecsegfalva 23 23B ditch Körös Culture

Roman Period Jindřichův 293 Poz ? 1855 30 Czech republic Ponědrážka site 7 pit Mesolithic Hradec Middle Ages 294 Poz ? 6120 40 Czech republic Znojmo Vedrovice Za dvorem 3/66 grave burial Linear Pottery Culture 295 Poz ? 6130 40 Czech republic Znojmo Vedrovice Za dvorem 2/63 grave burial Linear Pottery Culture 296 Poz ? 6080 40 Czech republic Znojmo Vedrovice Za dvorem 11/74 grave burial Linear Pottery Culture 297 Poz ? 6150 40 Czech republic Znojmo Vedrovice Za dvorem 10/74 grave burial Linear Pottery Culture Jindřichův 298 Poz-16752 9500 50 Czech republic Ponědrážka former Lake Švarcenberk layer Mesolithic Hradec Jindřichův 299 Poz-16753 9280 50 Czech republic Ponědrážka former Lake Švarcenberk layer Mesolithic Hradec 300 OxA-29050 6264 34 Hungary Szederkény-Kukorica dulő grave 301 OxA-29054 6314 33 Hungary Szederkény-Kukorica dulő grave Linear Pottery Culture 302 SUERC-48425 6354 34 Hungary Szederkény-Kukorica dulő grave Vinča Culture 303 Poz-21786 6340 40 Czech republic Zlín Spytihněv Na vrších unspecified feature Linear Pottery Culture, phase Ia (CZ) 304 Poz-22715 6200 30 Czech republic Znojmo Kyjovice Sutny unspecified feature Linear Pottery Culture, phase II (CZ) 305 MAMS-14809 6267 33 Hungary Szederkény-Kukorica dulő grave 306 OxA-28931 6267 33 Hungary Szederkény-Kukorica dulő pit Vinča Culture 307 SUERC-48417 6326 34 Hungary Szederkény-Kukorica dulő pit Vinča Culture 308 SUERC-48419 6247 34 Hungary Szederkény-Kukorica dulő pit Vinča Culture 309 OxA-28932 6297 31 Hungary Szederkény-Kukorica dulő pit Vinča Culture 310 OxA-30521 6266 32 Hungary Szederkény-Kukorica dulő pit Vinča Culture 311 SUERC-54934 6279 37 Hungary Szederkény-Kukorica dulő pit Vinča Culture 312 OxA-30520 6168 33 Hungary Szederkény-Kukorica dulő pit Vinča Culture 313 OxA-30518 6239 34 Hungary Szederkény-Kukorica dulő pit Vinča Culture 314 OxA-30522 6295 33 Hungary Szederkény-Kukorica dulő pit Vinča Culture 315 SUERC-54928 6313 37 Hungary Szederkény-Kukorica dulő pit Vinča Culture 316 SUERC-54929 6259 37 Hungary Szederkény-Kukorica dulő pit Vinča Culture

317 Poz-23317 6890 40 Hungary Szolnok Nagykörű Tsz Gyümölcsös 2 unspecified feature Körös Culture

318 Poz-23460 7040 40 Hungary Szolnok Nagykörű Tsz Gyümölcsös 2 unspecified feature Körös Culture

319 Poz-26088 7790 50 Czech republic Semily Karlovice Abri pod Pradědem layer rock shelter Early Mesolithic cultural layer

Kristova jeskyně (Kristova 320 Poz-26089 7230 50 Czech republic Semily Mírová pod Kozákovem 5 hearth Late Mesolithic cave) Proškův převis (Proška's 321 Poz-26099 8380 50 Czech republic Česká Lípa Dubá layer rock shelter Early Mesolithic cultural layer rock shelter) 322 Poz-26325 6860 40 Hungary Szolnok Nagykörű Tsz Gyümölcsös 9 unspecified feature Körös Culture

323 Poz-26327 6940 40 Hungary Szolnok Nagykörű Tsz Gyümölcsös 2 unspecified feature Körös Culture

324 Poz-26328 6970 40 Hungary Szolnok Nagykörű Tsz Gyümölcsös 2 unspecified feature Körös Culture

325 Poz-28214 6570 40 Hungary Ibrány Ibrány Nagyerdő layer Körös Culture 326 Poz-28215 5500 40 Hungary Ibrány Ibrány Nagyerdő layer Körös Culture 327 Poz-28216 6630 40 Hungary Ibrány Ibrány Nagyerdő layer Körös Culture 328 Poz-29282 5520 40 Hungary Ibrány Ibrány Nagyerdő layer Körös Culture 329 Poz-33142 6330 40 Czech republic Přerov Kladníky unspecified feature Linear Pottery Culture, phase Ia (CZ) 330 Poz-37410 6390 40 Czech republic Přerov Kladníky unspecified feature Linear Pottery Culture, phase Ia (CZ) Linear Pottery Culture, phase II (CZ) 331 Poz-37411 6180 40 Czech republic Zlín Otrokovice unspecified feature Linear Pottery Culture, phase III (CZ) 332 Poz-37860 6770 40 Hungary Szolnok Szolnok Szanda 3 pit Körös Culture 333 Poz-37861 6910 40 Hungary Szolnok Szolnok Szanda 3 unspecified feature house Körös Culture

334 Poz-38793 6210 40 Czech republic Znojmo Kyjovice Sutny II grave burial Linear Pottery Culture, phase II (CZ)

335 Poz-48888 6130 40 Czech republic Brno-Venkov Velatice unspecified feature Linear Pottery Culture, phase II (CZ) Linear Pottery Culture, phase IIa (CZ) 336 Poz-49024 6230 40 Czech republic Přerov Prosenice unspecified feature Linear Pottery Culture, phase Ib (CZ) Linear Pottery Culture, phase IIa (CZ) 337 Poz-49025 6210 40 Czech republic Přerov Prosenice unspecified feature Linear Pottery Culture, phase Ib (CZ) Linear Pottery Culture, phase II (CZ) Linear Pottery Culture, phase III (CZ) Jablonec Nad Linear Pottery Culture, phase IV (CZ) 338 UGAMS-5277 6210 30 Czech republic Pěnčín parcel 350/1 feature 1 hearth Nisou Stroke-Ornamented Ware Culture, phase I Stroke-Ornamented Ware Culture, phase II Stroke-Ornamented Ware Culture, phase III Linear Pottery Culture, phase II (CZ) Linear Pottery Culture, phase III (CZ) Jablonec Nad Linear Pottery Culture, phase IV (CZ) 339 UGAMS-5278 6100 30 Czech republic Pěnčín parcel 350/1 pit 2 pit mine pit Nisou Stroke-Ornamented Ware Culture, phase I Stroke-Ornamented Ware Culture, phase II Stroke-Ornamented Ware Culture, phase III Linear Pottery Culture, phase II (CZ) Linear Pottery Culture, phase III (CZ) Jablonec Nad Linear Pottery Culture, phase IV (CZ) 340 UGAMS-5279 6270 30 Czech republic Pěnčín parcel 350/1 pit 2 pit mine pit Nisou Stroke-Ornamented Ware Culture, phase I Stroke-Ornamented Ware Culture, phase II Stroke-Ornamented Ware Culture, phase III

mechanical 341 UGAMS-9512 8880 30 Czech republic Semily Mírová pod Kozákovem Konejlova jeskyně layer Early Mesolithic cultural layer layer 14

342 UGAMS-9516 6730 30 Czech republic Semily Mírová pod Kozákovem Dvojitá brána u Rohlin hearth 2 hearth Late Mesolithic

343 VERA ? 6285 Czech republic Znojmo Kyjovice Sutny H14 grave burial Early Neolithic 344 VERA ? 6195 40 Czech republic Znojmo Vedrovice Za dvorem 5/71 grave burial Linear Pottery Culture Linear Pottery Culture, phase II (CZ) Linear Pottery Culture, phase III (CZ) Linear Pottery Culture, phase III (CZ) 345 VERA-1821 6415 35 Slovakia Kežmarok Stráne pod Tatrami Pod Kamenným vrchom 8 pit Linear Pottery Culture, phase III (CZ) Linear Pottery Culture, phase II (CZ) Linear Pottery Culture, phase II (CZ) Linear Pottery Culture, Linear Pottery Culture, phase II (CZ) Linear Pottery Culture, phase II (CZ) Linear Pottery Culture, phase II (CZ) 346 VERA-1822 6235 40 Slovakia Kežmarok Stráne pod Tatrami Pod Kamenným vrchom 9 pit Linear Pottery Culture, phase II (CZ) Linear Pottery Culture, phase III (CZ) Linear Pottery Culture, phase III (CZ) Linear Pottery Culture, p Linear Pottery Culture, phase II (CZ) Linear Pottery Culture, phase II (CZ) Linear Pottery Culture, phase II (CZ) 347 VERA-1823 6190 40 Slovakia Kežmarok Stráne pod Tatrami Pod Kamenným vrchom 10 pit Linear Pottery Culture, phase II (CZ) Linear Pottery Culture, phase III (CZ) Linear Pottery Culture, phase III (CZ) Linear Pottery Culture, p Linear Pottery Culture, phase II (CZ) Linear Pottery Culture, phase II (CZ) Linear Pottery Culture, phase II (CZ) 348 VERA-1824 6385 30 Slovakia Kežmarok Stráne pod Tatrami Pod Kamenným vrchom 11 pit Linear Pottery Culture, phase II (CZ) Linear Pottery Culture, phase III (CZ) Linear Pottery Culture, phase III (CZ) Linear Pottery Culture, p Linear Pottery Culture, phase II (CZ) Linear Pottery Culture, phase II (CZ) Linear Pottery Culture, phase II (CZ) 349 VERA-1825 6275 35 Slovakia Kežmarok Stráne pod Tatrami Pod Kamenným vrchom 4 post hole Linear Pottery Culture, phase II (CZ) Linear Pottery Culture, phase III (CZ) Linear Pottery Culture, phase III (CZ) Linear Pottery Culture, p 350 VERA-1831 6220 35 Czech republic Znojmo Vedrovice Široká u lesa 46/77 grave burial Linear Pottery Culture 351 VERA-1832 6155 35 Czech republic Znojmo Vedrovice Široká u lesa 15/75 grave burial Linear Pottery Culture, phase Ib1 (CZ) Linear Pottery Culture, phase II (CZ) Linear Pottery Culture, phase III (CZ) Linear Pottery Culture, phase III (CZ) 352 VERA-1855 6270 35 Slovakia Kežmarok Stráne pod Tatrami Pod Kamenným vrchom 8 pit Linear Pottery Culture, phase III (CZ) Linear Pottery Culture, phase II (CZ) Linear Pottery Culture, phase II (CZ) Linear Pottery Culture, 353 VERA-192 6410 60 Austria Mödling Brunn am Gebirge Wolfholz 1413 unspecified feature Linear Pottery Culture 354 VERA-193 6370 30 Austria Mödling Brunn am Gebirge Wolfholz 1401 unspecified feature Linear Pottery Culture 355 VERA-195 6385 30 Austria Mödling Brunn am Gebirge Wolfholz 1417 unspecified feature Linear Pottery Culture 356 VERA-196 6215 40 Austria Mödling Brunn am Gebirge Wolfholz 1423 unspecified feature Linear Pottery Culture 357 VERA-197 6370 35 Austria Mödling Brunn am Gebirge Wolfholz 1423 unspecified feature Linear Pottery Culture 358 VERA-199 6395 30 Austria Mödling Brunn am Gebirge Wolfholz 123 unspecified feature Linear Pottery Culture 359 VERA-200 6385 35 Austria Mödling Brunn am Gebirge Wolfholz 100 unspecified feature Linear Pottery Culture 360 VERA-201 6405 30 Austria Mödling Brunn am Gebirge Wolfholz 54 unspecified feature Linear Pottery Culture 361 VERA-202 6430 30 Austria Mödling Brunn am Gebirge Wolfholz 145 unspecified feature Linear Pottery Culture 362 VERA-209 6420 35 Hungary Lenti Szentgyörgyvölgy Pityerdomb 17 pit Linear Pottery Culture, early phase 363 VERA-210 6425 35 Hungary Lenti Szentgyörgyvölgy Pityerdomb 21 pit Linear Pottery Culture, early phase 364 VERA-212 6475 40 Hungary Lenti Szentgyörgyvölgy Pityerdomb 9 pit Linear Pottery Culture, early phase 365 VERA-213 6415 40 Hungary Lenti Szentgyörgyvölgy Pityerdomb 19 pit Linear Pottery Culture, early phase 366 VERA-215 6475 40 Hungary Lenti Szentgyörgyvölgy Pityerdomb 18 pit Linear Pottery Culture, early phase 367 VERA-216 6420 40 Hungary Lenti Szentgyörgyvölgy Pityerdomb 17 pit Linear Pottery Culture, early phase 368 VERA-217 6450 45 Hungary Lenti Szentgyörgyvölgy Pityerdomb 20 pit Linear Pottery Culture, early phase 369 VERA-218 6610 40 Hungary Lenti Szentgyörgyvölgy Pityerdomb 18 pit Linear Pottery Culture, early phase 370 VERA-219 6390 50 Hungary Lenti Szentgyörgyvölgy Pityerdomb 20 pit Linear Pottery Culture, early phase 371 VERA-2596 6545 40 Czech republic Brno-Město Brno Globus 527/1995 unspecified feature Linear Pottery Culture, phase Ia (CZ) site Záhoří do klínů and U Linear Pottery Culture, phase II (CZ) 372 VERA-2598 6090 40 Czech republic Brno-Venkov Kuřim 109/96 unspecified feature kopečku Linear Pottery Culture, phase III (CZ) site Záhoří do klínů and U 373 VERA-2599 6150 40 Czech republic Brno-Venkov Kuřim 114/96 unspecified feature Linear Pottery Culture kopečku site Záhoří do klínů and U 374 VERA-2600 6075 35 Czech republic Brno-Venkov Kuřim 117/96 unspecified feature Linear Pottery Culture kopečku 375 VERA-2608 6240 35 Czech republic Znojmo Kyjovice Sutny 20 (H 20) grave burial Linear Pottery Culture 376 VERA-2609 6210 35 Czech republic Znojmo Kyjovice Sutny 18 (H 18) grave burial Linear Pottery Culture 377 VERA-2610 6150 35 Czech republic Znojmo Kyjovice Sutny 11 (H 11) grave burial Linear Pottery Culture Linear Pottery Culture, phase II (CZ) Linear Pottery Culture, phase III (CZ) Jablonec Nad Linear Pottery Culture, phase IV (CZ) 378 VERA-2981 6120 35 Czech republic Pěnčín Pěnčín-Jistebsko I 9 layer cultural layer Nisou Stroke-Ornamented Ware Culture, phase I Stroke-Ornamented Ware Culture, phase II Stroke-Ornamented Ware Culture, phase III 379 VERA-3051 6725 35 Hungary Szolnok Szajol Felsőföld 1 grave burial Körös Culture 380 VERA-3052 6755 40 Hungary Szolnok Nagykörű Tsz Gyümölcsös 1 unspecified feature Körös Culture 381 VERA-3474 6890 35 Hungary Szolnok Nagykörű Tsz Gyümölcsös 8 unspecified feature Körös Culture 382 VERA-3476 7065 35 Hungary Szolnok Nagykörű Tsz Gyümölcsös 10 unspecified feature Körös Culture 383 VERA-3531 6805 35 Hungary Szolnok Szajol Felsőföld unspecified feature house Körös Culture 384 VERA-3534 6620 35 Hungary Szolnok Szajol Felsőföld unspecified feature house Körös Culture 385 VERA-3540 6850 35 Hungary Szolnok Nagykörű Tsz Gyümölcsös 2 unspecified feature Körös Culture 386 VERA-4590 6210 35 Czech republic Znojmo Kyjovice Sutny unspecified feature Linear Pottery Culture, phase II (CZ) 387 VERA-4591 6225 35 Czech republic Znojmo Kyjovice Sutny unspecified feature Linear Pottery Culture, phase II (CZ)

388 VERA-686 6230 30 Czech republic Kutná Hora Bylany u Kutné Hory post hole house Linear Pottery Culture, phase IIc (CZ)

389 VERA-687 6215 30 Czech republic Kutná Hora Bylany u Kutné Hory post hole house Linear Pottery Culture, phase IIc (CZ)

390 VERA-688 6335 40 Czech republic Kutná Hora Bylany u Kutné Hory post hole house Linear Pottery Culture, phase IIc (CZ)

391 VERA-689 6210 35 Czech republic Kutná Hora Bylany u Kutné Hory pit Linear Pottery Culture, phase IIIb (CZ)

392 VERA-690 5825 35 Czech republic Kutná Hora Bylany u Kutné Hory pit Linear Pottery Culture, phase IIIb (CZ)

393 VERA-692 6370 40 Czech republic Kutná Hora Bylany u Kutné Hory post hole house Linear Pottery Culture, phase IIa (CZ)

394 VERA-693 6330 35 Czech republic Kutná Hora Bylany u Kutné Hory post hole house Linear Pottery Culture, phase IIa (CZ)

395 VERA-694 6300 35 Czech republic Kutná Hora Bylany u Kutné Hory post hole house Linear Pottery Culture, phase IIa (CZ)

396 VERA-695 6290 40 Czech republic Kutná Hora Bylany u Kutné Hory post hole house Linear Pottery Culture, phase IIIb (CZ)

397 VERA-696 6305 45 Czech republic Kutná Hora Bylany u Kutné Hory post hole house Linear Pottery Culture, phase IIIb (CZ)

398 VERA-697 6090 35 Czech republic Kutná Hora Bylany u Kutné Hory post hole house Linear Pottery Culture, phase IIIb (CZ)

399 VERA-698 6320 50 Czech republic Kutná Hora Bylany u Kutné Hory pit Linear Pottery Culture, phase Ic (CZ)

400 VERA-214 6380 35 Hungary Lenti Szentgyörgyvölgy Pityerdomb 19 pit Linear Pottery Culture, early phase 401 deb-2197 5900 60 Hungary Győr Győr Szabadrét-domb Feature 581 unspecified feature Linear Pottery Culture, Želiezovce phase 402 deb-2224 5800 60 Hungary Győr Győr Szabadrét-domb Feature 494 unspecified feature Linear Pottery Culture, Želiezovce phase 403 MAMS-14811 6362 33 Hungary Szederkény-Kukorica dulő grave 404 ETH-11150 6360 50 Austria Brunn am Gebirge grave 405 VERA-2170 6135 35 Austria grave early LBK 406 OxA-29052 6273 31 Hungary Szederkény-Kukorica dulő grave Vinča Culture 407 OxA-28930 6260 32 Hungary Szederkény-Kukorica dulő pit Vinča Culture 408 SUERC-54935 6299 37 Hungary Szederkény-Kukorica dulő pit Vinča Culture 409 SUERC-54936 6272 37 Hungary Szederkény-Kukorica dulő pit Vinča Culture 410 OxA-30519 6226 33 Hungary Szederkény-Kukorica dulő pit Vinča Culture 411 MAMS-14812 6220 29 Hungary Szederkény-Kukorica dulő grave 412 MAMS-14810 6224 29 Hungary Szederkény-Kukorica dulő grave 413 OxA-28933 6118 31 Hungary Szederkény-Kukorica dulő grave Ražište (?) 414 SUERC-48418 6078 34 Hungary Szederkény-Kukorica dulő grave Ražište (?) 415 SUERC-54938 6342 37 Hungary Szederkény-Kukorica dulő pit Ražište (?) 416 OxA-30517 6332 33 Hungary Szederkény-Kukorica dulő pit Ražište (?) 417 SUERC-54939 6278 33 Hungary Szederkény-Kukorica dulő pit Ražište 418 SUERC-54943 6224 37 Hungary Szederkény-Kukorica dulő pit Ražište 419 OxA-30514 6350 32 Hungary Szederkény-Kukorica dulő pit Ražište 420 OxA-30516 6168 33 Hungary Szederkény-Kukorica dulő pit Ražište 421 OxA-30513 6250 32 Hungary Szederkény-Kukorica dulő pit Ražište 422 PSUAMS-3468 6360 30 Austria Brunn am Gebirge grave 423 BETA-508239 6510 30 Austria Brunn am Gebirge grave ID Context_note Sample_material Sources 1 bone, animal Kuča - Přichystal - Schenk - Škrdla - Vokáč 2009, 313-326 2 tusk, mammoth Kuča - Přichystal - Schenk - Škrdla - Vokáč 2009, 313-326 3 tusk, mammoth Kuča - Přichystal - Schenk - Škrdla - Vokáč 2009, 313-326

4 charcoal Burleigh - Ambers - Matthews 1983, 39-58

5 charcoal Burleigh - Ambers - Matthews 1983, 39-58 6 charcoal Burleigh - Ambers - Matthews 1983, 39-58 7 charcoal Burleigh - Ambers - Matthews 1983, 39-58 8 charcoal Burleigh - Ambers - Matthews 1983, 39-58 Trench XVIII, depth 60- 9 charcoal Burleigh - Ambers - Matthews 1983, 39-58 90 cm Trench XVIII, depth 90- 10 charcoal Burleigh - Ambers - Matthews 1983, 39-58 120 cm 11 Trench XIX charcoal Burleigh - Ambers - Matthews 1983, 39-58 12 level 1 charcoal Burleigh - Ambers - Matthews 1983, 39-58 level 0-1 of building pit; 13 Bylany Period I, 3rd charcoal Burleigh - Hewson - Meeks 1977, 143-160 phase building pit; Bylany 14 Period II, pre-optimal charcoal Burleigh - Hewson - Meeks 1977, 143-160 phase level 2 of building pit; 15 Bylany Period II, post- charcoal Burleigh - Hewson - Meeks 1977, 143-160 optimal part level 3 of building pit; 16 charcoal Burleigh - Hewson - Meeks 1977, 143-160 Bylany Period II, end building pit; Bylany 17 charcoal Burleigh - Hewson - Meeks 1977, 143-160 Period III, 1st part level 3 of building pit; 18 Bylany Period IV (Šárka), charcoal Burleigh - Hewson - Meeks 1977, 143-160 middle phase level 1-6 of building pit; 19 Bylany Period IV (Šárka), charcoal Burleigh - Hewson - Meeks 1977, 143-160 ending phase on E side of the house nr. 12 (trench, sunk 60 20 cm into loess loam, grain, Triticum dicoccum Kohl - Quitta 1964, 308-317 quadrate 114), 1961 excavation (R. Tichý) on E side of the house nr. 12 (trench, sunk 60 21 cm into loess loam, grain, Triticum dicoccum Kohl - Quitta 1964, 308-317 quadrate 114), 1961 excavation (R. Tichý)

22 organic temper, potsherd Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159

23 charcoal Horváth - Hertelendi 1994, 111-133 24 charcoal Horváth - Hertelendi 1994, 111-133 25 charcoal Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 26 charcoal Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 27 Sector III Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 28 Sector IV Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 29 charcoal Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 30 Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 31 charcoal Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 32 charcoal Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 33 charcoal Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 34 depth 70 cm charcoal, Fraxinus sp. Kohl - Quitta 1964, 308-317 shalow pit; beginning of 35 carbonized grain Lička 2011, 94 middle phase

part of the pit system of a house, W side of the 36 house (N part of the charcoal, Quercus sp. Kohl - Quitta 1970, 400-420 settlement area); depth 0,70-0,90 below surface

part of the pit system of a house, E side of the 37 house (N part of the charcoal, Quercus sp. Kohl - Quitta 1970, 400-420 settlement area), depth 0,70-0,90 below surface

38 bone, human Görsdorf 1995, 205-208

depth 100-110 cm; 39 charcoal, Quercus sp. Kohl - Quitta 1970, 400-420 phase uncertain 40 depth 100-110 cm charcoal, Quercus sp. Kohl - Quitta 1970, 400-420 41 depth 100-110 cm charcoal, Quercus sp. Kohl - Quitta 1970, 400-420 dwelling pit, half 42 sunken, 1954 excavation potsherd Kohl - Quitta 1964, 308-317 - J. Pavelčík 43 depth 100-160 cm charcoal, Quercus sp. Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 44 depth 100-130 cm charcoal, Quercus sp. Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 45 depth 100-130 cm charcoal, Quercus sp. Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 46 depth 200-210 cm charcoal, Quercus sp. Quitta - Kohl 1969, 223-255 47 depth 100-110 cm charcoal, Quercus sp. Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 1960 excavation (A. 48 potsherd Kohl - Quitta 1964, 308-317 Rybová); early phases depth 100-150 cm 49 organic temper, potsherd Horváth - Hertelendi 1994, 111-133 below the surface trench, depth 100-120 50 potsherd Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 cm below surface cave settlement, sector 51 17, depth 190-210 cm, charcoal Vencl et al. 2009, 5-48 paper bag No. 80/76 cave settlement, sector 52 18, depth 200-210 cm, charcoal Vencl et al. 2009, 5-48 paper bag No. 103/76 cave settlement, sector 18, depth 265 cm, paper 53 charcoal Vencl et al. 2009, 5-48 bag No. 116/76; era uncertain cave settlement, sector 18, depth 270-285 cm, 54 charcoal Vencl et al. 2009, 5-48 paper bag No. 117/76; era uncertain cave settlement, sector 55 18, depth 345-355 cm, charcoal Vencl et al. 2009, 5-48 paper bag No. 128/76 cave settlement, sector 21, depth 300-310 cm, 56 charcoal Vencl et al. 2009, 5-48 paper bag No. 169/78; era uncertain 57 trench 3; 85-87 cm burned wooden branch, pine Šída - Pokorný - Kuneš 2007, 55-64

located in D7025, layer 58 charred wood Šída - Prostředník - Kuneš 2011, 151-157 16 Pit 6, Sq. FJ22/55/5, 59 bone, human, male, 31-37 years Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 depth 65-80 cm Sq. FJ22/53/15, depth 60 bone, animal Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 155-165 cm Sq. FJ22/52/10, depth 61 bone, animal Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 110-125 cm 62 bone Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 63 bone Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 64 charcoal Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 65 Square I bone, human Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 66 Depression a charcoal Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 Square I, depth 120-170 67 charcoal Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 cm 68 Square 5 bone, human Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 69 skeleton No. 3 bone, human Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 Location I, FindNr. 70 charcoal Lenneis - Stadler 1995, 4-12 I0040c Location I, FindNr. 71 charcoal Lenneis - Stadler 1995, 4-12 I0047d Location II, FindNr. 72 charcoal Lenneis - Stadler 1995, 4-12 00125b Location II, FindNr. 73 charcoal Lenneis - Stadler 1995, 4-12 00106b

74 Location I, FindNr. I0043 charcoal Lenneis - Stadler 1995, 4-12

Location I, FindNr. 75 charcoal Lenneis - Stadler 1995, 4-12 I0059x Location II, FindNr. 76 charcoal Lenneis - Stadler 1995, 4-12 I00106a 77 Location II, FindNr. 109 charcoal Lenneis - Stadler 1995, 4-12 Location II, FindNr. 78 charcoal Lenneis - Stadler 1995, 4-12 00120b Location I, FindNr. 79 charcoal Lenneis - Stadler 1995, 4-12 I0139d Location II, FindNr. 80 charcoal Lenneis - Stadler 1995, 4-12 01061e Location II, FundNr. 81 charcoal Lenneis - Stadler 1995, 4-12 01172a Location II, FindNr. 82 charcoal Lenneis - Stadler 1995, 4-12 00136b 83 Location II, FindNr. 157 charcoal Lenneis - Stadler 1995, 4-12 Location II, FindNr. 84 charcoal Lenneis - Stadler 1995, 4-12 01193c

85 Location II, FindNr. 1279 charcoal Lenneis - Stadler 1995, 4-12

86 Location II, FindNr. 1383 charcoal Lenneis - Stadler 1995, 4-12

Location II, FundNr. 87 charcoal Lenneis - Stadler 1995, 4-12 01391b

88 Location II, FindNr. 1248 charcoal Lenneis - Stadler 1995, 4-12

89 Location II, FindNr. 1388 charcoal Lenneis - Stadler 1995, 4-12 90 Location II, FindNr. 6083 charcoal Lenneis - Stadler 1995, 4-12

Feature 0748GP4/5, 91 charcoal Lenneis - Stadler 1995, 4-12 Location II, FindNr. 8492

Feature 0748GP6/7, 92 charcoal Lenneis - Stadler 1995, 4-12 Location II, FindNr. 8857

93 Location II, FindNr. 6144 charcoal Lenneis - Stadler 1995, 4-12

Feature 0748, Location 94 charcoal Lenneis - Stadler 1995, 4-12 II, FindNr. 8780 Feature 0748, Location 95 charcoal Lenneis - Stadler 1995, 4-12 II, FindNr. 8867 Location II, FindNr. 96 charcoal Lenneis - Stadler 1995, 4-12 10026 Location II, FindNr. 97 charcoal Lenneis - Stadler 1995, 4-12 10063 98 bone, human Lenneis - Stadler 1995, 4-12 99 bone, human Lenneis - Stadler 1995, 4-12 100 location II, Neolith.3 bone, human LeLenneis - Stadler 1995, 4-12 in area E; \"semi- subtarranean house\" 101 on the South-East from Bláhová-Sklenářová - Prostředník 2007, 14-24 groundplan EL2 = remains of building in area E; originally clay pit for house-building, later used for activities outside the house?, pit 102 Bláhová-Sklenářová - Prostředník 2007, 14-24 located near groundplan EL1 (remains of building), filling of the feature in area E; pit/channel (from the house remains?) next to the 103 Bláhová-Sklenářová - Prostředník 2007, 14-24 area near groundplan EL1 - remains of building

mine, excavation in 104 charcoal Pokorný - Šída - Novák - Prostředník 2010, 587-607 2007

rock shelter, trench 1, 105 mechanical layer 14 = charcoal Šída - Prostředník - Kuneš 2011, 151-157 depth 130-140 cm cave settlement, rock shelter, trench 1, hearth 106 charcoal Šída - Prostředník - Kuneš 2011, 151-157 2, layer 15 = second hearth layer 107 mine, feature 3 charcoal Pokorný - Šída - Novák - Prostředník 2010, 587-607

located in 4/4/05, layer 108 charcoal Šída - Prostředník - Kuneš 2011, 151-157 14a

109 located in 5/20, layer 20 charcoal Šída - Prostředník - Kuneš 2011, 151-157

located in 6/4/05, layer 110 charcoal Šída - Prostředník - Kuneš 2011, 151-157 14b located in 9/8/05, layer 111 charcoal Šída - Prostředník - Kuneš 2011, 151-157 25 cave settlement, rock 112 charcoal Šída - Prostředník - Kuneš 2011, 151-157 shelter, 38/97/6O cave settlement, rock 113 charcoal Šída - Prostředník - Kuneš 2011, 151-157 shelter, 12/97/9R cave settlement, layer 7 - lower part of the layer, concentration of 114 charcoal Svoboda 2003 charcoal, depth 120-125 cm, excavation 1998; Boreal cave settlement, charcoal layer (upper 115 Mesolithic layer), depth charcoal Svoboda 2003 76-79cm, excavation 1998; Boreal cave settlement, hearth (massive), depth 240 116 charcoal Svoboda 2003 cm, excavation 2001; Atlantic cave settlement, charcoal layer, depth 117 charcoal Svoboda 2003 260 cm, excavation 2001; Atlantic cave settlement, trench 118 I, hearth, excavation charcoal Svoboda 2003 2001; Boreal

cave settlement, trench 119 II, hearth (massive), charcoal Svoboda 2003 excavation 2001; Boreal

cave settlement, trench 120 I, small pit 5, excavation charcoal Svoboda 2003 2001; Boreal

cave settlement, trench 121 I, small pit 6, excavation charcoal Svoboda 2003 2001; Boreal

mine, subhorizontal undercuttings and 122 charcoal, Pirus sp. Oliva 2008, 144-153 possibly corridors; Boreal mine, subhorizontal undercuttings and 123 charcoal Oliva 2008, 144-153 possibly corridors; Boreal 124 charcoal Lenneis - Stadler 1995, 4-12 125 charcoal Lenneis - Stadler 1995, 4-12 126 charcoal Lenneis - Stadler 1995, 4-12 127 charcoal Lenneis - Stadler 1995, 4-12 128 charcoal Lenneis - Stadler 1995, 4-12 129 charcoal Lenneis - Stadler 1995, 4-12 130 charcoal Lenneis - Stadler 1995, 4-12 charred grain, Triticum 131 Pavelčík 1992, 193-195 monococcum 132 charcoal Lenneis - Stadler 1995, 4-12 133 charcoal Lenneis - Stadler 1995, 4-12 cave settlement, concentration of 134 charcoal 6, depth cca charcoal Svoboda 2003 110 cm, excavation 1994-1995; Boreal cave settlement, concentration of 135 charcoal 7, depth cca charcoal Svoboda 2003 130 cm, excavation 1994-1995; Boreal cave settlement, charcoal layer (hearth with several cavities), 136 charcoal Svoboda 2003 depth cca 230 cm, excavation 1995 and 1998; Boreal cave settlement, layer 4 - charcoal layer, depth 50- 137 charcoal Svoboda 2003 70 cm, excavation 1997; Boreal cave settlement, upper Mesolithic layer (layer 138 4a), hearth, C, depth 75 charcoal Svoboda 2003 cm, excavation 1997; Atlantic

cave settlement, upper Mesolithic layer (layer 139 4a) - charcoal layer, B, charcoal Svoboda 2003 depth 80 cm, excavation 1997; Atlantic

cave settlement, middle Mesolithic layer (layer 140 4b) - charcoal layer, B, charcoal Svoboda 2003 depth 115 cm, excavation 1997; Boreal cave settlement, middle Mesolithic layer (layer 4b) - charcoal layer, B, 141 charcoal Svoboda 2003 depth 115-120 or 130 cm, excavation 1997; Boreal cave settlement, concentration of charcoal, at the base of 142 charcoal Svoboda 2003 the filling, depth 120 cm, excavation 1998; Boreal cave settlement, charcoal layer (middle 143 Mesolithic layer), depth charcoal Svoboda 2003 90 cm, excavation 199; Boreal

cave settlement, hearth, 144 depth 80 cm, excavation charcoal Svoboda 2003 1998; Boreal

cave settlement, layer 4, concentration of 145 charcoal, depth cca 240 charcoal Svoboda 2003 cm, excavation 1998; Boreal cave settlement, concentration of 146 charcoal, depth 120-130 charcoal Svoboda 2003 cm, excavation 1999; Boreal cave settlement, hearth 3 (lower hearth), depth 147 charcoal Svoboda 2003 cca 240 cm, excavation 1999; Boreal cave settlement, charcoal layer, depth 148 charcoal Svoboda 2003 140 cm, excavation 2000; Atlantic

cave settlement, feature A, right profile, the 149 lowest hearth, depth 70 charcoal Svoboda 2003 cm, excavation 2000; Boreal

cave settlement, charcoal layer, depth 150 charcoal Svoboda 2003 175 cm, excavation 2001; Atlantic cave settlement, hearth, depth 210 cm, 151 charcoal Svoboda 2003 excavation 2001; Atlantic

152 layer 2 charcoal Zápotocký - Zápotocká 2008 153 part B charred grain Zápotocký - Zápotocká 2008

154 charcoal Vogel - Waterbolk 1967, 107-155 excavation by R. Tichý in 155 wet wood Neustupný - Veselý 1977, 183-187 1971 156 charcoal Horváth - Hertelendi 1994, 111-133 157 area C bone Mook 1978, 88-89 158 area C charred bone Mook 1978, 88-89 159 humuslike sand layer extracted humus Valoch 1978, 87 160 humuslike sand layer extracted humus Valoch 1978, 87 Location I, FindNr. 161 bone, animal Lenneis - Stadler 1995, 4-12 I0059b Location I, FindNr. 162 bone, animal Lenneis - Stadler 1995, 4-12 I0139b Location I, FindNr. 163 bone, animal Lenneis - Stadler 1995, 4-12 I0039c

164 charcoal Kalábek – Kalábková – Peška 2010, 255-262

165 charcoal Bien - Pandolfi 1972, 368-379 166 charcoal Bien - Pandolfi 1972, 368-379

167 charcoal Bien - Pandolfi 1972, 368-379

168 floor of firing chamber charcoal Crane - Griffin 1968, 61-114

pit-fill of borrow pit E of 169 charcoal Crane - Griffin 1968, 61-114 oven mouth 170 Grave 2484 bone, human, juvenile János et al. 2016 excavation by R. Tichý in 171 wet wood Neustupný - Veselý 1977, 183-187 1971 excavation by R. Tichý in 172 wet wood Neustupný - Veselý 1977, 183-187 1971 173 nut shell, hazel nut Kuča et al. 2009, 313-326 Context 304/307, Find 174 phalanx, equid Bronk Ramsey - Higham - Whittle - Bartosiewicz 200, 173-188 3814 175 mandible, human Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 Trench 23B, Context 176 bone, ovicaprid Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 347, Find 6005 Trench 23B, Context 177 bone, roe deer Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 353, Find 6982 178 Context 515, Find 9365 bone, ovicaprid Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159

179 Context 354, Find 71235 bone, cattle Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159

180 Context 374, Find 8157 bone, animal Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 Trench 23B, Context 181 bone, ovicaprid Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 369, Find 7909 182 Context 136, Find 242 charred cereal grain Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 Trench 23B, Context 183 bone, cattle Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 382, Find 10236 184 Context 136, Find 259 charred cereal grain Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159

185 Context 404, Find 10702 bone, ovicaprid Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159

186 Context 135, Find 1515 bone, ovicaprid Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 187 Context 521, Find 9412 tooth, sheep Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159

188 Context 464, Find 14074 bone, sheep Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 Trench 23B, Context 189 bone, ovicaprid Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 359, Find 7886 Trench 23B, Context 190 bone, ovicaprid Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 374, Find 8158 191 Context 344, Find 6334 bone, ovicaprid Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 Trench 23B, context 192 bone, sheep Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 373, Find 8723

193 Context 351, Find 10818 bone, Bos Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159

194 Context 352, Find 10262 bone, ovicaprid Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159

Context 397-404, Find 195 bone, cattle Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 10391 196 Context 528, Find 9497 bone, cattle Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159

197 Context 445, Find 12845 bone, ovicaprid Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159

198 Context 470, Find 13793 bone, sheep Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159

199 inhumation bone, human, female, 30-40 years Dočkalová 2008, 239-315 200 inhumation bone, human, female, adult Dočkalová 2008, 239-315 201 inhumation bone, human, female, 18-20 years Zvelebil - Pettitt 2008, 195-218 202 inhumation bone, human, female, 45-55 years Dočkalová 2008, 239-315 203 inhumation bone, human, female, 16-18 years Dočkalová 2008, 239-315 204 inhumation bone, human, child, 4-5 years Dočkalová 2008, 239-315 205 inhumation bone, human, child, 10-12 years Dočkalová 2008, 239-315 206 inhumation bone, human, child, 14 years Dočkalová 2008, 239-315 207 inhumation bone, human, child, 10-14 years Dočkalová 2008, 239-315 208 inhumation; grave 81 bone, human, newborn Dočkalová 2008, 239-315 209 inhumation bone, human, male, 18-20 years Zvelebil - Pettitt 2008, 195-218 210 inhumation bone, human, child, 11-12 years Dočkalová 2008, 239-315 211 inhumation bone, human, female, 30-35 years Dočkalová 2008, 239-315 212 inhumation bone, human, male, 40-50 years Dočkalová 2008, 239-315 213 inhumation bone, human, male, 25-30 years Zvelebil - Pettitt 2008, 195-218 214 inhumation bone, human, male, 35-45 years Dočkalová 2008, 239-315 215 inhumation bone, human, male, 40-45 years Zvelebil - Pettitt 2008, 195-218 216 inhumation bone, human, male, 30 years Dočkalová 2008, 239-315 217 inhumation bone, human, female, 35-45 years Dočkalová 2008, 239-315 218 inhumation bone, human, female, adult Dočkalová 2008, 239-315 219 inhumation bone, human, female, 30-40 years Dočkalová 2008, 239-315 220 inhumation bone, human, female, adult Dočkalová 2008, 239-315 221 inhumation bone, human, child, 3-5 years Dočkalová 2008, 239-315 222 inhumation bone, human, male, adult Dočkalová 2008, 239-315 223 inhumation bone, human, male, adult Dočkalová 2008, 239-315

224 bone, animal Pettitt - Hedges 2008, 125-134

225 inhumation bone, human, male, 20-25 years Dočkalová 2008, 239-315 226 inhumation bone, human, male, 30-35 years Dočkalová 2008, 239-315 227 inhumation bone, human, male, 20-25 years Dočkalová 2008, 239-315 228 inhumation bone, human, female, 25-35 years Dočkalová 2008, 239-315 229 inhumation bone, human, male, 30 years Zvelebil - Pettitt 2008, 195-218 230 inhumation bone, human, male, 50-60 years Zvelebil - Pettitt 2008, 195-218 231 inhumation bone, human, child, 9 years Dočkalová 2008, 239-315 232 inhumation; grave 93 bone, human, female, 18-25 years Dočkalová 2008, 239-315 233 inhumation bone, human, female, 40-45 years Zvelebil - Pettitt 2008, 195-218 bone, human, female, more than 50 234 inhumation Dočkalová 2008, 239-315 years 235 inhumation bone, human, female, 16-18 years Dočkalová 2008, 239-315 236 inhumation bone, human, female, 18-20 years Dočkalová 2008, 239-315 237 inhumation bone, human, female, 18-20 years Dočkalová 2008, 239-315 238 inhumation bone, human, male, 35-40 years Zvelebil - Pettitt 2008, 195-218 239 inhumation bone, human, child, 3-4 years Dočkalová 2008, 239-315 240 inhumation bone, human, female, 18-20 years Zvelebil - Pettitt 2008, 195-218 241 inhumation bone, human, female, 18-20 years Zvelebil - Pettitt 2008, 195-218 mine, trench I-13, subhorizontal 242 undercuttings and charcoal, Quercus sp. Oliva 2008, 144-153 possibly corridors, depth 3 m; Boreal Sq. FJ2242/13, depth 243 seed Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 135-145 cm Sq. FJ2252/10, depth 244 seed Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 110-125 cm Sq. FJ2262/11, depth 245 seed Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 110-125 cm 246 pelvis, human Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 247 femur, human Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 248 costa, human Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 249 costa, human Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 250 mandible, human Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159

cemetery, inhumation 251 tibia, human, male Whittle et al. 2013, 101-158 burial

cemetery, inhumation 252 tibia, human, female, mature adult Whittle et al. 2013, 101-158 burial

cemetery, inhumation 253 radius, human, male, mature adult Whittle et al. 2013, 101-158 burial

cemetery, inhumation humerus, human, female ?, older 254 Whittle et al. 2013, 101-158 burial adult cemetery, inhumation 255 tibia, human, female, mature adult Whittle et al. 2013, 101-158 burial cemetery, inhumation 256 tibia, human, female, older adult Whittle et al. 2013, 101-158 burial

cemetery, inhumation 257 tibia, human, female Whittle et al. 2013, 101-158 burial

vertical karst fissure, left femur, human, male, 20-30 258 levels 5/6, the lowest Matoušek 2000, 15-30. years horizon, human remains

Context 304/307, Find 259 phalanx, equid Bronk Ramsey - Higham - Whittle - Bartosiewicz 2007, 173-188 3814 260 Context 301, Find 3178 rib, ovicaprid Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 261 Context 308, Find 4157 ulna, large mammal Bronk Ramsey - Higham - Whittle - Bartosiewicz 2007, 173-188 262 Context 313, Find 4230 scapula, ovicaprid Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 263 Context 314, Find 4475 scapula, ovicaprid Bronk Ramsey - Higham - Whittle - Bartosiewicz 2007, 173-188 264 Context 316, Find 4706 bone, sheep Bronk Ramsey - Higham - Whittle - Bartosiewicz 2007, 173-188 265 Context 327, Find 4783 ilium, sheep Bronk Ramsey - Higham - Whittle - Bartosiewicz 2007, 173-188 Trench 23B, Context 266 humerus, cattle Bronk Ramsey - Higham - Whittle - Bartosiewicz 2007, 173-188 336, Find 4905 267 113 Flot 105 charred wheat Bronk Ramsey - Higham - Whittle - Bartosiewicz 2007, 173-188 268 113 Flot 105 charred barley Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 269 charcoal Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 270 rib, human Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 271 in a \"rubbish\" pit tooth, human Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159

272 bone, animal Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 273 bone, animal Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 274 bone, human Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159

275 in a \"rubbish\" pit skull, human Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159

276 skull, human Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 277 mandible, human Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 278 skull, human Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 279 mandible, human Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 280 Context 307, Find 4064 tibia, ovicaprid Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159

\"large pit below burnt 281 horn, goat Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 ruins\", Square 33

\"east ash pit\", Square 282 calcaneum, sheep Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 32

Square 29, \"inside 283 house\", depth 30-40 humerus, sheep Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 cm

Square 27, \"below 284 house\", depth 60-90 frontal bone, goat Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 cm

Square 32, \"below 285 house ruins, west\", radius, sheep Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 depth 50-80 cm

Square 32, depth 80- 286 metacarpus, sheep Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 110 cm below house, Square 29, 287 radius, sheep Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 depth 65-90 cm bottom, Square 35, 288 metacarpus, sheep Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 depth 130-190 cm

\"large pit\", bottom, 289 Square 33, depth 150- mandible, sheep Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 200 cm

290 Context 301, Find 3178 bone, ovicaprid Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 291 Context 307, Find 4064 bone, ovicaprid Bronk Ramsey - Higham - Whittle - Bartosiewicz 2007, 173-188

292 Context 313, Find 4230 bone, ovicaprid Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159

293 located in trench 1/05 charcoal Šída - Chvojka - Pokorný 2009, 5-16

294 inhumation bone, human Dočkalová 2008, 239-315 295 inhumation bone, human Dočkalová 2008, 239-315 296 inhumation bone, human Dočkalová 2008, 239-315 297 inhumation bone, human Dočkalová 2008, 239-315 298 trench 3, 85-92 cm wood, pine Šída - Pokorný - Kuneš 2007, 55-64

299 trench 3, 92-100 cm nut shell, hazel nut Šída - Pokorný - Kuneš 2007, 55-64

300 Grave 2491 bone, human, adult male János et al. 2016 301 Grave 237 bone, human, adult female János et al. 2016 302 Grave 367 bone, human, adult female János et al. 2016 303 from the settlement charcoal Schenk - Kuča - Škrdla - Roszková 2008, 226-231 304 tusk, mammoth Kuča et al. 2009, 313-326 305 Grave 2398 bone, human János et al. 2016 306 Pit 189 bone, animal János et al. 2016 307 Pit 316 bone, animal János et al. 2016 308 Pit 375 bone, animal János et al. 2016 309 Pit 375 bone, animal János et al. 2016 310 Pit 522 bone, animal János et al. 2016 311 Pit 529 bone, animal János et al. 2016 312 Pit 530 bone, animal János et al. 2016 313 Pit 2423 bone, animal János et al. 2016 314 Pit 219 bone, animal János et al. 2016 315 Pit 219 bone, animal János et al. 2016 316 Pit 517 bone, animal János et al. 2016 Stratigraphic Level 16 317 seed Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 (F2S16) Stratigraphic Level 16 318 shell Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 (F2S16) cave settlement, rock 319 carbonized hazelnut shell Šída - Prostředník - Kuneš 2011, 151-157 shelter

320 layer 16 carbonized hazelnut shell Šída - Prostředník - Kuneš 2011, 151-157

cave settlement, rock 321 carbonized hazelnut shell Šída - Prostředník - Kuneš 2011, 151-157 shelter 322 charcoal Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 Stratigraphic Level 16 323 charcoal Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 (F2S16) Stratigraphic Level 16 324 charcoal Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 (F2S16) 325 stratum 3 bone, animal Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 326 stratum 40 bone, animal Domboróczki - Raczky 2010, 191-218 327 stratum 48 bone, fish Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 328 stratum 54 organic temper, potsherd Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 329 charcoal Kuča et al. 2011, 51-64 330 charcoal Kuča et al. 2011, 51-64

331 charcoal Kuča et al. 2011, 51-64

332 depth 70-80 cm bone, animal Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 333 depth 40 cm bone, animal Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159

filling of grave H27 and feature 803 (clay pit): pit of the Linear Pottery 334 bone, animal Vostrovská et al. 2011, 165-166 culture was disturbed by grave H27 of the Bell Beaker culture

335 charcoal Kuča et al. 2011, 51-64

336 charcoal Kuča et al. 2011, 51-64 337 charcoal Kuča et al. 2011, 51-64

mine, on the edge of a 338 charred wood Pokorný - Šída - Novák - Prostředník 2010, 587-607 mine

339 mine, profile charred wood Pokorný - Šída - Novák - Prostředník 2010, 587-607

340 mine, profile charred wood Pokorný - Šída - Novák - Prostředník 2010, 587-607

cave settlement, depth 341 130-140 cm, located in charcoal Šída - Prostředník - Kuneš 2011, 151-157 rock shelter, trench 4 square A-D5A, mechanical layer 70-80 cm below surface; 342 hearth (middle hearth carbonized pine cone Šída - Prostředník - Kuneš 2011, 151-157 of the 4 Mesolithic hearths) located in small rock gate 343 bone, human, female Kazdová 2008, 88-101 344 inhumation bone, human Dočkalová 2008, 239-315

Younger phase - 345 charcoal, Quercus sp. Soják 2004, 69-102 \"Notenkopf Keramik\"

Younger phase - 346 charcoal, Quercus sp. Soják 2004, 69-102 \"Notenkopf Keramik\"

Younger phase - 347 charcoal, Fagus Soják 2004, 69-102 \"Notenkopf Keramik\" Younger phase - 348 charcoal, Quercus sp. Soják 2004, 69-102 \"Notenkopf Keramik\"

Younger phase - 349 charcoal, Ulmus sp. Soják 2004, 69-102 \"Notenkopf Keramik\"

350 inhumation bone, human, male, 20-35 years Pettitt - Hedges 2008, 125-134 351 inhumation bone, human, male, 35-40 years Pettitt - Hedges 2008, 125-134

Younger phase - 352 charcoal, Quercus sp. Soják 2004, 69-102 \"Notenkopf Keramik\"

353 charcoal, Fraxinus Stadler et. al 2000 354 charcoal, Fraxinus Stadler et. al 2000 355 charcoal, Quercus sp. Stadler et. al 2000 356 charcoal, Quercus sp. Stadler et. al 2000 357 charcoal, Quercus sp. Stadler et. al 2000 358 charcoal, Quercus sp. Stadler et. al 2000 359 charcoal, Quercus sp. Stadler et. al 2000 360 charcoal, Quercus sp. Stadler et. al 2000 361 charcoal, Fraxinus Stadler et. al 2000 362 charcoal, Quercus sp. Stadler et. al 2000 363 charcoal, Quercus sp. Stadler et. al 2000 364 charcoal, Fagus Stadler et. al 2000 365 charcoal, Fagus Stadler et. al 2000 366 charcoal, Quercus sp. Stadler et. al 2000 367 charcoal, Fagus Stadler et. al 2000 368 charcoal, Cornus mas Stadler et. al 2000 369 charcoal, Cornus mas Stadler et. al 2000 370 charcoal, Fagus Stadler et. al 2000 371 bone, animal Mateiciucová 2008

372 bone, animal Mateiciucová 2008

373 bone, animal Mateiciucová 2008

374 bone, animal Mateiciucová 2008

375 bone, human, male, 17-19 years Dočkalová - Koštuřík 1996, 5-30 376 bone, human, female, 18-20 years Dočkalová - Koštuřík 1996, 5-30 377 bone, human, female, 30-40 years Dočkalová - Koštuřík 1996, 5-30

378 mine, sector E charcoal Prostředník et al. 2005, 477-492 379 house bone, human Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 380 bone, animal Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 381 bone, animal Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 382 bone, animal Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 383 floor level bone, aurochs Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 384 Square 4 bone, wild boar Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 385 Strat. 9 bone, animal Oross – Siklósi 2012, 129-159 386 tusk, mammoth Kuča 2009, 313-326 387 tusk, mammoth Kuča 2009, 313-326 posthole, complex 388 charcoal, Quercus sp. Pavlů 2000 H.0041, Pf.4170 posthole, complex 389 charcoal, Quercus sp. Pavlů 2000 H.0041, Pf.4187 posthole, complex 390 charcoal Pavlů 2000 H.0041, Pf.4205 complex H.0096, Gr.93, 391 T.c., Sch.3, large loam charcoal Pavlů 2000 pit, asynchronic filling

complex H.0096, Gr.93, 392 T.c., Sch.2-3, large loam charcoal, Quercus sp. Pavlů 2000 pit, asynchronic filling

posthole, complex 393 charcoal Pavlů 2000 H.0306, Pf.1030 posthole, complex 394 charcoal, Quercus sp. Pavlů 2000 H.0306, Pf.1031 posthole, complex 395 charcoal, Quercus sp. Pavlů 2000 H.0306, Pf.1054 posthole, complex 396 charcoal, Quercus sp. Pavlů 2000 H.0912, Pf.5329 posthole, complex 397 charcoal, Quercus sp. Pavlů 2000 H.0912, Pf.5335 posthole, complex 398 charcoal Pavlů 2000 H.0912, Pf.5355 complex H.2197, 399 Gr.2168, T.a., Sch.3, charcoal, Quercus sp. Pavlů 2000 construction pit 400 charcoal, Ulmus sp. Stadler et al. 2000 401 bone, animal Figler - Bartosiewicz - Füleky - Hertelendi 1997, 209-230 402 bone, animal Figler - Bartosiewicz - Füleky - Hertelendi 1997, 209-230 403 Grave 2436 bone, human, adult female János et al. 2016 404 Grave 4 bone Nikitin – Stadler et al. 2019 405 Grave 15/75 bone János et al. 2016 406 Grave 1550 bone, human, adult female János et al. 2016 407 Pit 2125 bone, animal János et al. 2016 408 Pit 1396 bone, animal János et al. 2016 409 Pit 1690 bone, animal János et al. 2016 410 Pit 2057 bone, animal János et al. 2016 411 Grave 2842 bone, human, young adult János et al. 2016 412 Grave 3413 bone, human, young adult János et al. 2016 413 Grave 3050_human bone, human, juvenile János et al. 2016 414 Grave 3050_animal bone, animal János et al. 2016 415 Pit 2768 bone, animal János et al. 2016 416 Pit 2768 bone, animal János et al. 2016 417 Pit 2889 bone, animal János et al. 2016 418 Pit 3075 bone, animal János et al. 2016 419 Pit 3075 bone, animal János et al. 2016 420 Pit 2948 bone, animal János et al. 2016 421 Pit 3370 bone, animal János et al. 2016 422 Grave 3 dentin Nikitin – Stadler et al. 2019 423 Grave 1 dentin Nikitin – Stadler et al. 2019