Metzner Nebelsick

BUDAPEST 2012
Archaeological, Cultural and

Linguistic Heritage
Festschrift for Erzsbet Jerem
in Honour of her 70
th
Birthday
Edited by
Peter Anreiter, Eszter Bnffy, Lszl Bartosiewicz,
Wolfgang Meid & Carola Metzner-Nebelsick
Published in cooperation with
Innsbrucker Beitrge zur Kulturwissenschaft
and with the support of
Bundesministerium fr Wissenschaft und Forschung, Vienna
Cover
Stamp decorated Early La Tne ask from Hidegsg
Eisenstadt, Burgenlndisches Landesmuseum
Volume Editor
WOLFGANG MEID
assisted by
Fruzsina Cseh, Gergely Hs,
Rita Kovcs, Tanja Rasetzki & Judit Solti
ISBN 978-963-9911-28-4
HU-ISSN 1215-9239
The Authors and Archaeolingua Foundation
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any
means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or any other information storage and
retrieval system, without requesting prior permission in writing from the publisher.
2012
ARCHAEOLINGUA ALAPTVNY
H-1250 Budapest, ri u. 49
Desktop editing and layout by Rita Kovcs
Printed by AduPrint Kft.
Contents
Vorwort .................................................................................................................................................. 9
List of Publications by Erzsbet Jerem ................................................................................................. 11
PETER ANREITER
Ein onomastischer Streifzug durch das Burgenland ..................................................................... 21
JESS ALBERTO ARENAS-ESTEBAN
The Celtiberian World: A Long Process of Cultural Hybridization .............................................. 33
BETTINA ARNOLD
Soul Stones: Unmodied Quartz and Other Lithic Material in Early Iron Age Burials ........... 47
ESZTER BNFFY PL SMEGI
The Early Neolithic Agro-Ecological Barrier in the Carpathian Basin:
A Zone for Interaction .................................................................................................................. 57
LSZL BARTOSIEWICZ
Cernunnos in Hungary? ................................................................................................................ 71
MRIA BONDR
A New Late Copper Age Wagon Model from the Carpathian Basin ............................................ 79
STEFAN BURMEISTER PETER RAULWING
Festgefahren. Die Kontroverse um den Ursprung des Streitwagens.
Einige Anmerkungen zu Forschung, Quellen und Methodik ....................................................... 93
PATRIZIA DE BERNARDO STEMPEL FRANCISCO BURILLO MOZOTA
M ESPERANZA SAIZ CARRASCO REINHOLD WEDENIG
Women Potters and Their Names in Celtic-Speaking Areas ................................................. 115
GERHARD DOBESCH
Die Rolle der Redner und der Rednerschulen in der provinzialrmischen Kultur ..................... 135
ALEXANDRINE EIBNER
Mnner in Waffen: Kmpfer oder Tnzer? ................................................................................. 159
CLEMENS EIBNER
Hallstttische Sagen und Mythen ............................................................................................... 195
ERIKA GL
The First Cock Crow: On the Occurrence and Spreading of Domestic Hen
(Gallus domesticus Linnaeus 1758) in Hungary ........................................................................ 207
6
MITJA GUTIN
Die keltische Bauernsiedlung bei Murska Sobota am Sdrand Pannoniens .............................. 215
BERNHARD HNSEL BIBA TERAN KRISTINA MIHOVILI
Beile und ihre Teile. Beobachtungen an Funden aus Monkodonja/Istrien ................................. 225
RALPH HAEUSSLER
Hero Cults between Iron Age and Principate ............................................................................. 249
IVO HAJNAL
Historisch-Vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft, Archologie, Archogenetik und
Glottochronologie: Lassen sich diese Disziplinen sinnvoll vereinen? ....................................... 265
MICHAEL JANDA
Abbilder der Morgenrte: Ungarisch asszony Frau und seine iranische Vorgeschichte ......... 283
RAIMUND KARL KATE WADDINGTON
Ausgrabungen in der doppelten Ringwallanlage von Meillionydd bei Rhiw
auf der Lln-Halbinsel, Nordwest-Wales ................................................................................... 289
KARL KAUS MARGARETE KAUS
Zum Kultgert von Haschendorf ................................................................................................ 303
VIKTRIA KISS
Central European and Southeastern Alpine Inuences upon
Western Transdanubias Early and Middle Bronze Age ............................................................ 321
SUSANNE KLEMM
Die Bergbaufolgelandschaft in der Eisenerzer Ramsau, Steiermark (sterreich):
Methoden und Ergebnisse montanarchologischer Forschung .................................................. 337
GABRIELLA KULCSR
Siedlungen entlang des Kapos-Tals (Sd-Transdanubien) zu Beginn der Bronzezeit ............... 349
AMEI LANG
Das Grab der Nerka. Bemerkungen zu Este Ricovero, Grab 23 ................................................ 363
JUTTA LESKOVAR
Eisenzeitliche Argumente im Neodruidentum ............................................................................ 379
FRANCISCO MARCO SIMN
From the Kermaria Stone to the Turibulum of Chartres:
Some Thoughts on Celtic Cosmology ........................................................................................ 393
JOHN VINCENT STANLEY MEGAW MADELINE RUTH MEGAW
Poles apart? Notes from the fringes of the Hungarian sword style ........................................ 401
7
WOLFGANG MEID
Aspekte keltischer Glaubensvorstellungen: Seelenwanderung und Gestaltenwechsel .............. 415
CAROLA METZNER-NEBELSICK
Social Transition and Spatial Organisation:
The Problem of the Early Iron Age Occupation of the Strongholds in Northeast Hungary ....... 425
LOUIS NEBELSICK
Scythian Eagles with Ionic Honeysuckle. Patterns of Iconographic Acculturation in the
North Pontic Steppes during the 6
th
and 5
th
Centuries BC .......................................................... 449
GARRETT OLMSTED
Portrayals of Elephants, Grifns, and Dolphins in Western Celtic Metalwork and
Coinage During the First Century BC ........................................................................................ 475
KLRA PUSZTAIN FISCHL JNOS PL REBENDA
Early Bronze Age (RB A1A2, about 23001500 cal BC) Settlement Structure at
the Northern Part of the Great Hungarian Plain. A Case Study: Mezcst-Pstidomb .............. 487
PETER C. RAMSL
Two Stone Stelae from the La Tne Cemetery at Mannersdorf/Leithagebirge,
Flur Reinthal Sd ........................................................................................................................ 499
FERENC REDO
Reconstruction Model of the Lenyfalu burgus ......................................................................... 509
KARL HORST SCHMIDT
On the Reconstruction of Celtic Prehistory. Towards a New Analysis of
the Change of Position of Celtic among the Indo-European Languages .................................... 525
FRANKA SCHWELLNUS
Funktionsanalyse der spthallstatt- bis frhlatnezeitlichen Siedlungskeramik
aus Sopron-Krautacker ............................................................................................................... 531
DAVID STIFTER
Eine V.I.P. zwischen Pannonien und Tirol .................................................................................. 539
THOMAS STLLNER
The Rise of the Proto-Celts? The Transition from the Early to
the Late Hallstatt-Period in Southern Germany .......................................................................... 551
KARIN STBER
Eine fragmentarische gallische Inschrift aus Augusta Raurica ................................................... 569
8
ROBERTO TARPINI
berlegungen zur Herausbildung hallstattzeitlicher Musterkanone am Ostalpenrand
anhand des Beispiels der Kegelhalsgefverzierung .................................................................. 575
GERHARD TOMEDI ULRIKE TCHTERLE
Der Kupferbergbau als movens fr die
frh- und mittelbronzezeitliche Aufsiedelung Nordtirols ........................................................... 587
RASTKO VASI
Balkan Connections in the Early Iron Age ................................................................................. 601
JRGEN ZEIDLER
A Proto-Indo-European Ancestor God in Celtic Tradition ......................................................... 605
MANUEL ZEILER
Grber: Kein Spiegel des Lebens. Die Laufzeitdatierung jngerlatnezeitlicher Gefkeramik
in Abhngigkeit von Verbreitung und zeitlicher Entwicklung der Beigabensitten ..................... 617
List of Contributors ............................................................................................................................ 629
Social Transition and Spatial Organisation:
The Problem of the Early Iron Age Occupation
of the Strongholds in Northeast Hungary
CAROLA METZNER-NEBELSICK
Introduction
Hillfort research in Hungary has always been of prominent concern to Erzsbet Jerem. The rst time
when I recall hearing her views on this interesting topic was during her lecture series on the Late Bronze
Age and Early Iron Age of Hungary, which she held in 1984 as an exchange scholar at the Archaeological
Institute of the University of Oxford. I am deeply thankful to Erzsbet for having encouraged me as a
young student and ever since as well as for kindling the re of interest for the Bronze and Iron Age of
Hungary and the Carpathian Basin in general.
In this article I will focus my attention on north-eastern Hungary, since here the question of the
duration of hill top settlement occupation has in the past been regarded as signicantly different from
the western part of Hungary or the east Alpine Hallstatt Culture, where prominent sites such as the well
known Sopron Burgstall, Velem-Szentvid, Stillfried, Maribor Potela, Kleinklein Burgstall or others have
been discussed intensively by various scholars. These hillforts are indeed crucial for our understanding
of the eastern Hallstatt culture (Osthallstattkultur or Osthallstattkreis; JEREM LIPPERT 1996). One
of the prominent features of the eastern Hallstatt Region are fortied hilltop settlements (Burgstall
Siedlungen), which functioned as foci of larger geographical areas and are always accompanied by
tumulus cemeteries. The importance of these places is most clearly shown by the rich grave inventories
of the inhabitants of the hillforts often containing artefacts with high status value.
One of interesting differences between east Alpine hillforts and those further to the west involves
their spans of occupation. Whereas strongholds in Styria, Dolenjsko, western Hungary, northeast Austria
and western Slovakia
1
as well as related sites on the south-eastern fringe of the Hallstatt world
2
were
intensively settled in the Hallstatt C period, evidence in northern Bavaria/Franconia shows a very
different picture. In this region no traces of signicant hillfort occupation in Ha C1 have been recognized
so far (GERLACH 1998; RIND 1999).
The same occupation pattern, i.e. an intensive settlement phase at the end of the Urneld period
(10
th
8
th
c. BC) and a lack of occupation in Ha C, has also been proposed for the areas east of the bend
of the Danube (MATUZ NOVKI 2002). It has to be mentioned, however, that this assumption is also
based on a chronological understanding of the Urneld period as proposed by Hermann Mller-Karpe in
1959, which saw the beginning of the Hallstatt period around 700 BC. More recent studies supported by
1
Velem: VON MISKE 1908; Sopron: PATEK 1968, pl. 28; 1982; 1993; for Hungary, eastern Austria and western
Slovakia in general see JEREM URBAN 2000; for western Hungary also Nagyberki-Szalacska, though largely
unpublished (various preliminary reports by HONTI 1992), Pcs-Jakabhegy (MARZ 1996); northeast Austria:
Stillfried (HELLERSCHID 2006); western Slovakia: Smolenice-Molpr (DUEK DUEK 1984; 1995; PARZINGER
STEGMANN-RAJTR1988; STEGMANN-RAJTR 1998; 2000); titre-ibrica (STEGMANN-RAJTR 2004) and
others (HORNK STEGMANN-RAJTR 2008); northeast Austria: Braunsberg (URBAN 2011) or in the southeast
Alpine region: Kleinklein (DOBIAT 1990; SMOLNIK 1996); Potela near Maribor (TERAN 1990), Stina
(GABROVEC 1994), also DULAR TECCO HVALA 2007.
2
In the southeast Pannonian or so-called Dalj group: the fortied settlement of Batina (METZNER-NEBELSICK
2002).
426 Carola Metzner-Nebelsick
dendrodates from various places have shown that in south-central Europe the beginning of the Hallstatt
Period must already have taken place within the 8
th
c. BC with a nd horizon prior to the classical Ha C1
Mindelheim period
3
.
In north-eastern Hungary there is ample evidence for hilltop settlements and fortications, the same
holds true for adjacent Slovakia
4
. Especially in the Late Bronze Age according to the Central European
terminology, i.e. the Urneld Period, a large number of fortied settlements can be named. The best
researched strongholds in the area under consideration include Bkkszentlszl-Nagysnc, Felstrkny-
Vrhegy and Szilvsvrad-Trksnc (see below). In some of these sites hoard nds dating to the 9
th
/
early 8
th
c. BC (MOZSOLICS 2000) have been discovered. This period is equivalent to the Early Iron Age
in Hungarian terminology or the Late Urneld/Ha B late phase in Central European terminology.
The area in question is formed by the Zempln, Mtra and Bkk Mountains between the Zagyva and
Bodrog rivers as well as the Cserht and Brzsny Mountains to the west (Fig. 1). Those mountains or
hills form part of the southern fringes of the north-western Carpathians and reach heights between 400
and up to 1000 meters. Particularly the lower elevations around 500 m, which are divided by small rivers,
provide the geographical setting for the settlement type in question. At rst sight, our knowledge about
Late Bronze Age/Urneld Period settlements in north-eastern Hungary appears to be quite satisfactory
thanks to a comprehensive monographic study by Edit Matuz and Gyula Novki (MATUZ NOVKI
2002) as well as a series of articles by MATUZ (1992; 1994; 1999; 2001; MATUZ KLLAY 1993/1994)
about hillforts in northeast Hungary
5
.
A closer look at a representative selection of 46 fortied settlements of presumably Late Bronze Age
date however, reveals a different picture. 35 out of these 46 are marked on Fig. 2. Again 28 of those can,
3
For further references see PARE 1998; METZNER-NEBELSICK 2002, 46 ff.; TRACHSEL 2004.
4
NOVKI BARZ 2000; MATUZ NOVKI 2002; NOVKI SRKZY FELD 2007; NOVKI et al. 2009; for
eastern Slovakia among others: BUDINSK-KRIKA MIROAYOV 1992; MIROAYOV 1987.
5
The volume on the fortied settlements in the county of Heves (NOVKI et al. 2009) was not at my disposal.
Fig. 1. Modied distribution map by MATUZ NOVKI (2002, 77 g. 1). Hillforts of the Late Bronze and
Early Iron Age in Northeast Hungary. Sites with a Ha C or Ha C/D occupation underlined in black:
11: Bkkszentlszl-Nagysnc; 13: Szilvsvrad-Kelemenszke (Trksnc); 14: Felstrkny-Vrhegy;
22: Mtraszentimre-gasvr; 40: Percsny-Jancsi-hegy.
427 Social transition and spatial organisation
according to Novki and Matuz and recent studies by Gbor SZAB (2009), be dated to the Late Bronze
and Early Iron Age that is the Urneld period , by the evidence of pottery. In 13 cases out of the 28
cases cited by these authors the material recovered from surveys have remained largely unpublished.
Moreover only 7 of these north east Hungarian strongholds have been partly investigated by small scale
excavations. The rest of the fortied sites mentioned by Matuz and Novki is only attributed to the
Urneld period on typological grounds, i.e. on the basis of the shape of their ramparts. As a conclusion,
we have to live with the fact that only a small sample of these sites can fairly securely be dated to the
time between 1300 and 800 BC.
In an article published in 2001 Matuz made detailed comparative analyses of pottery from various
hillfort sites in order to demonstrate that they outlived the immigration of a pre-Scythian population from
the eastern European Steppes and were still occupied in the 9
th
to 8
th
c. BC (Ha B23). This argument
was based mainly on a statement proposed by Tibor Kemenczei (KEMENCZEI 1984), who saw a major
collapse of the Gva and Kyjatice cultural groups as the result of the invasion of nomadic population
groups from areas east of the Carpathian Mountains. This event, he argued, lead to the deposition of
hoard nds and the abandonment of the mountain strongholds, which then remained unused during
the pre-Scythian period. The new invasive population was identied with the Fzesabony-Mezcst-
Group (PATEK 1993; METZNER-NEBELSICK 1998; ROMSAUER 1999). In the aforementioned article of
2001 Matuz corrected this view by focussing on the surprisingly large number of sherds with clear
parallels in nd contexts of the 9
th
to 8
th
century BC from the southeast of the Hungarian Plain and the
lower Danube area as well as from the pre-Scythian burials themselves (MATUZ 2001). Matuz showed
convincingly that these hillforts ourished while the pre-Scythian populations of the Fzesabony-
Mezcst-Group inhabited the lowlands. Nonetheless she did not consider a date later than the close of
the Ha B period for hillfort occupation in northeast Hungary to be an option. This thesis, I believe, needs
to be re-examined.
Matuz and Novkis (2001; 2002) arguments were dominated by the idea that the antagonistic
relationship of the steppe based people in the plain and those of an indigenous population in the mountains
and hills caused the nal abandonment of these sites as well leading to the hiding of the bronze values
in form of hoards or even the occupation of caves as refuge (MATUZ 2001, 299). Although the arrival
of new population elements during the transition between the late Bronze and early Iron Age can not be
excluded and is in fact highly likely, in my view the assumption that there was a catastrophic inux of
easterners in pre-Scythian times which led to large scale destruction and cultural disruption is largely
biased and does not take all the available evidence into account. Since I have dealt with this problem of
a pre-Scythian steppe based impact into the Carpathian Basin in detail in several articles, I do not wish
to comment on this complex issue again (METZNER-NEBELSICK 1998; 2002; 2010). Two points however
should be addressed briey in this article:
The rst concerns hoarding practices. In the Bronze Age and Urneld period hoards can no longer be
seen as indicators for catastrophic events. The reoccurring patterns of their deposition and the patterned
composition of their contents show them to be one of the most characteristic features of ritual behaviour
with a religious connotation for European societies in general. The comprehensive literature on hoards
and their current interpretation can not be quoted here in detail
6
. Following this paradigm, it can also
be assumed that nds in caves are ritually motivated depositions either in form of material sacrices or
indeed as burial offerings, but can not be seen as debris of living quarters in times of crisis.
The second point I would like to make, is to oppose the argument that fortications of the Kyjatice
culture in northern Hungary were not occupied after the Ha B23 period. A re-examination of the
6
An overview gives HANSEN 1991; 1994; METZNER-NEBELSICK in print.
evidence shows that settlement in these strongholds continued well into the Ha C1 period that is the 7
th
c.
BC.
The argument as it stands, i.e. the whole scale abandonment of these sites at the beginning of the
early Iron Age, implies that the patterns of stronghold occupation in eastern Hungary stood in strong
contrast to the situation west of the Danube and also in western
7
as well as eastern Slovakia
8
where
settlement activity reaches a peak in the 7
th
c. BC. If we look further east to the Middle Dnestr region,
the picture is complex but similar. Although research in this region is still at a preliminary stage, it can
be said that some hillforts with a late Urneld occupation were also inhabited in the Iron Age, i.e. in the
7
th
and 6
th
c. BC. This is remarkable, since here a steppe impact may in fact have been even greater than
in the Great Hungarian Plain (Alfld)
9
.
Nonetheless it can be stated that in north-eastern Hungary the major occupation and fortication
periods lie in the Urneld period with different intervals within the 13
th
to 9
th
century BC and a later phase
in the Latne Period
10
. One problem in addressing the issue of a Hallstatt period occupation of northeast
Hungarian hillforts is the chronological terminology or rather our understanding of the meaning of
certain chronological labels, as will be shown below. A second problem is the attribution of a supposedly
historical paradigm to an archaeological material and the attendant limitation of interpretation due to
the persistence of set assumptions. A third point is that phases of rampart construction and the ones of
settlement occupation need not be identical, as existing hillfort ramparts may have been used continually
by population groups succeeding those who built them.
Discussion of sites and material
The evidence of the hillforts which will be discussed here is the same used by Novki and Matuz. The
most important sites in question are Miskolc-Bkkszentlszl, Nagysnc in the county of Borsod-Abaj-
Zempln, which was excavated in 1930 and 1958 by Andor Leszih and Mihly Prducz; Felstrkny-
Vrhegy, Heves county, which was excavated rst in 1962 and 1964 by Prducz (MATUZ 1992; MATUZ
NOVKI 2002, 27 ff.), Szilvsvrad, also in Heves county, from which archaeological evidence for
parts of the interior and a section through the rampart was gained by Erzsbet Pateks excavation in 1963
(MATUZ 1999; MATUZ NOVKI 2002, 31 ff.) and nally Mtraszentimre-gasvr in the county of
Heves (MATUZ KLLAY 1993/1994). Problems are posed by limitations in the quality of the published
documentation of many of these sites. In most cases pottery was not associated with separate layers
or rarely to closed nd complexes, thus stratigraphical information with chronological value is often
missing.
Miskolc-Bkkszentlszl, Nagysnc:
With 16,9 ha of encompassed area Miskolc-Bkkszentlszl, Nagysnc (meaning large stronghold)
is one of the larger hillforts in the region. It is located at a height of 455 m above sea level in the
Mtra Mountains. There is no published documentation of settlement structures within the ramparts on
7
For new results on Smolenice-Molpr see: DUEK DUEK 1995; STEGMANN-RAJTR 2000.
8
MIROAYOVA 1987; BUDINSKY-KRIKA MIROAYOVA 1992
9
Dolinjani (SMIRNOVA 2001) or Zalyssja (GANYNA 1984) to name just two, the latter with very early imports of
Greek Ionian pottery as well as early wheel turned pottery, so called grey ware (KAUBA LEVICKIJ 2009).
10
This could recently been shown by Kroly Tnko and Andrea Vaday for the hillfort of Mtraszls-Kirlydomb
(TANK VADAY 2010). Here a later Iron Age occupation could be easily proven by Latne wheel turned
pottery as well as Kammstrichware. Indeed the identication of early Hallstatt (Ha C) pottery or domestic
wares is a big problem on a lot of sites, where painted pottery or other truly signicant shapes or dcors are
missing.
Fig. 2. Selection of Late Bronze and Iron Age hill site fortied settlements in Northeast Hungary
(XXX = positive evidence; informations mainly after MATUZ NOVKI 2002; SZAB 2009).
site
LBA/EIA defense
(excavation)
Urneld
occupation
survey bronze hoards
special
features
8
th
/7
th
c. BC
occupation
Bkkszentlszl-
Nagysnc
1. phase: -; 2. phase: + Ha A/Ha B excavation 3: 9
th
/8
th
c. BC pits XXXXXXXXXXXX
Felstrkny-Vrhegy 1.
phase
1. phase: -; 2. phase: + Ha A/Ha B excavation houses XXXXXXXXXXXX
Szilvsvrad-
Kelemenszke
earthern rampart with
wooden frame
Ha B3 excavation X pits XXXXXXXXXXXX
Mtraszentimre-gasvr Kyjatice excavation house, pit XXXXXXXXXXXX
Percsny-Halyagos XXX settlement outside
rampart
Kyjatice XXXXX articial
terraces
XXXXXXXXXXXX
Cserpfalu-Msz-tet earthern rampart,
settlement outside rampart
Kyjatice XXXXXX ditch
Kemence-Godvr stone fronting/earthen
rampart with stone core
Ha B XXXXXX
Bkkaranyos-Fldvr date??? LBA ditch Piliny/Kyjatice 4:10
th
& 9
th
c.
Boldogkjfalu-Kincses-
hegy
LBA XXXXXX articial
terraces
Bkkzsrc, Hdos-tet XXX 4: Urneld period
Ddestapolcsny-
Verebce-tet
earthern rampart Kyjatice XXXXXX X
Disjen-Pognyvr Kyjatice XXXXXX articial
terraces
Galyatet-Nyesettvr XXX Kyjatice
Grmbly-Vrhegy XXX Kyjatice
Gyngyssolymos-Kis-
hegy
stone construction Piliny 4: Urneld period
Gyngyspata-Vrhegy Piliny XXXXXX
Hont-Jelenc-hegy wooden frame construction Kyjatice
Kemence-Magosfa stone rampart Kyjatice XXXXXX gate; date?
Kemence-Plska-szikla stone rampart Kyjatice XXXXXX
Karancsalja-Kpolna Kyjatice XXXXXX 2 terraces
Mtraszentimre-vr stone and earthen rampart Kyjatice XXXXXX X: 9
th
c. BC
Mtraszls-Kerekbkk stone rampart LBA XXXXXX X
Miskolctapolca-Vrhegy only Latne fortication? Kyjatice
Nagybrzsny-Magyar-
hegy
Kyjatice XXXXXX articial
terraces
Nagybrzsny-Rustok-
hegy
wooden frame with earth
lling
Kyjatice
Percsny-Jancsi-hegy XXX Kyjatice
Romhny-Vrhegy XXX Kyjatice
Sly-Latorvr-tet XXX Kyjatice
Szanda-Szanda-Vrhegy stone rampart LBA/Ha B3? 2: one 9
th
c. BC destroyed
Szcsny-Benczrfalva,
Majohegy
Piliny/Kyjatice several
Szokoly-Pap-hegy stone rampart Kyjatice house
foundations
Tllya-vr Earth and stone rampart ? LBA XXXXXX X 4 gates
Tllya-Mekecsvr LBA XXXXXX ditch
Tolcsava-Vrhegy stone rampart Ha B3/Ha C? XXXXXX
Abasr-Rnya-brc XXX X
Further LBA/EIA defended sites: Boldogkvralja-T-hegy, Bkkszenterzsbet-Nagy k, Fony-Sllyedt Bn-hegy, Gyngyssolymos-
Eremny, Hangony-Pognyvr, Jobbgyi-Vrhegy, Mtrafred-Benevr-brc, Pard-Vrhegy, Sirok, Sernyfalva-Zsidvr, Telkibnya-
Cser-hegy
a larger scale; a comprehensive report of the research done so far is published by Matuz (1994). After
an unfortied settlement phase, which according to Matuz belongs to the early phase of the Kyjatice
cultural group or the Ha A2/B1 period (i.e. 11
th
to 10
th
c. BC), the rst fortied period is dated to the
9
th
and early 8
th
c. BC that is the late phase of the Kyjatice cultural group (MATUZ 1994, 54). A section
through the rampart on the north-eastern part of the fortication was excavated by Prducz, but only
a rather schematised impression is published (MATUZ NOVKI 2002, 125 g. 49). It seems to have
consisted of a stone fronting, which was backed up by an earthen construction with traces of burnt
wood, hinting at a wood and earth rampart construction (Holzerdemauer). Obviously the rampart was
reused and upgraded in the Latne Period as early Iron Age sherds in the upper layers of the fortication
indicate (MATUZ NOVKI 2002, 10)
11
.
Szilvsvrad-Kelemenszke (Trksnc):
The fortication of Szilvsvrd-Kelemenszke (Trksnc) situated on a ca. 703 m high elevation of the
Mtra Mountains covers an area of around 60 ha, which is substantially larger than Bkkszentlszl and
furthermore one of the largest hillforts in the area. A section through the rampart revealed a construction
with an earthen core with masses of charcoal and ash, so that a burnt wooden frame might be reconstructed
(PATEK 1973, pl. 1920; MATUZ 1999; MATUZ NOVKI 2002, 126 g. 50). The present outline of the
fortication system with several gates seems however to be of later date. Inside the settlement Erzsbet
Patek describes replaces, pits and ashy layers (MATUZ 1999, 9 ff.). The published material shows a wide
variety of cultural contacts of the hillfort inhabitants with the east, most notably the Gva-Holirhady
culture, represented by channelled pottery and animal gurines (PATEK 1973; MATUZ NOVKI 2002,
184 g. 110,14.16), as well as to the Urneld world in the west.
Felstrkny-Vrhegy:
The best documented site available to us is Felstrkny-Vrhegy
12
, because excavations took place
in several parts of the site especially in the south. The settlement lies on a 668 m high and with only
1,6 ha comparatively small plateau. Its small and elongated ground plan falls into two parts, which
are connected by a narrow land bridge. Only the southern part revealed Late Bronze Age settlement
structures. Like in Bkkszentlszl this fortication apparently belongs to the second phase of Late
Bronze Age dated to the 9
th
and early 8
th
BC. Felstrkny-Vrhegy is so far the only site from which
some information about the interior organisation can be obtained, since six rectangular houses of modest
size were recovered close to the rampart in a street like grouping
13
. Large patches of clay and only
very few post holes indicate that the houses were erected on sleeper beams with mud walls and had
a roof with wooden rafters
14
. The absence of postholes in the other two aforementioned sites hints
at a building technique, were the aboveground structures did not survive. This would have been the
case for houses with wooden log-built walls. A comparable situation can be observed in contemporary
settlements like Stillfried a. d. March in Lower Austria (HELLERSCHMID 2006), where a lot of pits but
hardly any postholes were found.
11
Because of the differing terminology in Hungary and in Central Europe Early Iron Age in this case very likely
means late Urneld period.
12
MATUZ 1992; MATUZ NOVKI 2002, 90 g. 14; 127 g. 51; 131134 gs. 5558; 137138 gs. 6364.
13
MATUZ 1992, 83. A similar structure can be observed in the Hallstatt hillfort of Smolenice-Molpr (DUEK
DUEK 1984; 1995; STEGMANN-RAJTR 1998; 2002).
14
MATUZ NOVKI 2002, 136138 gs. 6264. Prduczs reconstruction is not convincing, especially since none
of the houses has been excavated completely.
Mtraszentimre:
The prehistoric rampart on a 780 m (above sea level) high hill top near Mtraszentimre-gasvr in
Heves county is 330 by 150 m (2,9 ha) large. According to Edit Matuz and gota Kllay (1993/1994)
an excavation 250 m below this enclosure revealed traces of a settlement of the late Kyjatice culture
madeup of a pit and a house complex (Fig. 3). The house inventory was preserved almost intact, as four
large storage vessels and smaller pottery types, predominantly cups and bowls, could be reconstructed.
Matuz compares this material with pre-Scythian burials of the Fzesabony-Mezcst-Group (MATUZ
NOVKI 2002, 13; 62; 98 g. 22; 185186 g. 111112), but as will be shown below, the inventory
(MATUZ NOVKI 2002, 185 g. 111,5) is later in date. Its interesting that Matuz and Kllay stress that
especially the large storage vessels (Fig. 3.69) also have parallels in early Scythian materials (MATUZ
KLLAY 1993/1994, 6465). Taking in mind that the Scythian Vekerzug culture is not manifest in the
area before the middle of the 7
th
c. BC. This statement is rather remarkable, since it contradicts the whole
argument put forward by Matuz in her other articles concerning hillfort occupation in north-eastern
Hungary.
The outstanding position of Mtraszentimre-gasvr is also underlined by the fact that the excavated
house and pit were located outside the actual rampart on a lower terrace of the hill. To my knowledge this
is, next to Cserpfalu-Msz-tet (MATUZ NOVKI 2002, 11), where an excavation in 1960 with ve
small trenches revealed Kyjatice pottery in and outside the fortication, the only case of a suburban
settlement so far discovered or excavated in the area.
This short review of the most important excavations
15
makes it very clear that our information concerning
the spatial organisation of the interior of the hillforts in Northeast Hungary is scarce and not satisfactory.
Because of this, we can hardly comment on their economic organisation. Questions of social stratication
can therefore only be answered hypothetically. That the erection of an impressive rampart system would
require central planning and a large population is an assumption, which can not be supported by the
evidence of contemporary graves; which are hardly known. Judging from the environmental conditions
we can only assume that animal husbandry, i.e. cattle or sheep herding, was one of the major factors
in late Bronze Age economy in the hilly landscape of northwest Hungary as well as adjacent lower
elevations. Gbor V. Szab has argued that contemporary Late Bronze Age Gva communities in the
Alfld were involved in cattle herding on a larger scale
16
. What we do know, however on the basis of
surveys, is the fact that at least two sites also possessed a contemporary settlement outside the ramparts.
This offers the potential for a differentiated functional relation between the stronghold and the suburban
settlement. In the eastern Carpathian Basin the tell site of Feudvar near Moorin in the Vojvodina has
revealed a comparable picture for the Early Iron Age (HNSEL MEDOVI 1991; MEDOVI 1991;
FALKENSTEIN 1998).
Moreover evidence of ritual activity within the settlements or at the slopes of the hills on which
they lie, is attested by the presence of bronze hoards like the ones from Bkkszentlszl, Bkkaranyos-
Fldvr, Benczrfalva-Major hegy and Szanda-Szanda hegy (MOZSOLICS 2000, pls. 57; see also SZAB
2009)
17
. So far a single hoard or up to four hoards were found in several strong hold sites (Fig. 2). The
deposition of bronze hoards near to or even within a fortied settlement reects a general pattern which
can also be observed in several sites in Transdanubia, in Moravia or Bavaria just to mention a few
15
A recent small scale rescue excavation in Mtraszls-Kirlydomb (TANK VADAY 2010) did at least for
the Late Bronze Age (Piliny culture) occupation not reveal signicant housing structures but again only pits
(MATUZ NOVKI 2002, 120124 gs. 4448).
16
SZAB 1996, 56. See also BECKER 2000, BOROFFKA 2005 and METZNER-NEBELSICK 1998, 408.
17
Szab mentions a couple of hill sites, where he recently discovered Bronze Age hoard nds by using a metal
detector for controlled excavations.
regions
18
. Hoarding practises offer an indirect evidence that fortied settlements functioned as religious
as well as political centres.
The evidence of nds, hillfort settlement activity after 800 BC?
If we take a closer look at the pottery revealed by surface collections or small scale excavations within
the hillforts in the area in question, some new information can be gained from these materials, which
were not recognised before or interpretated differently. This will shed new light on the discussion of
hillfort occupation in eastern Hungary.
A major difculty we are facing in addressing the question of settlement continuity beyond 800
BC is the problem of identifying Ha C1 domestic pottery. This difculty is enhanced by the fact that
radiocarbon dating between the rst decades of the 7
th
until the 5
th
centuries BC does not offer any help
due to the so-called Hallstatt plateau of the calibration curve. Finally iron artefacts, which at least in
southern Germany function as indicators for the Ha C1 period (Mindelheim phase), have been in use
well before that time i.e. the second half of the 8
th
and the 7
th
centuries BC in the Carpathians including
Transylvania. Therefore the dating of these artefacts, as recently published from the Slovakian cemetery
of Cinobana in the district of Poltr (FURMNEK MIT PAVELKOV 2010, 129 g. 9), mostly
depends on stratigraphy or the nds associations with chronologically distinctive artefacts.
Recently shadows have been cast on the model of a cultural break in the Hungarian Plain after 800 BC,
which was assumed as being triggered by members of the Fzesabony-Mezcst-Group and then later
embodied by the people of Szentes-Vekerzug culture.
Especially one site in the lowlands of north-eastern Hungary has to catch our attention. In Nyregyhza
Mandabokor (ISTVNOVITS 1997), located immediately south of the mountain fringes, a Scythian type
settlement of the 6
th
c. BC with extraordinary nds was discovered. Not only does this excavation show
that the people using Scythian type Szentes-Vekerzug material were not entirely mobile but also that
they lived in settlements in which artefacts of high quality were produced. It also showed that next to
the typically grey wheel turned pottery, a handmade pottery type was used in the settlement, which
Eszter Istvnovits describes as representing Late Bronze Age Gva tradition (ISTVNOVITS 1997, 80).
If this statement is veried in the nal publication, this will have great consequences for our view of the
historical development of the Alfld and the adjacent mountain areas to the north in the late 8
th
and 7
th
c.
BC Nndor Kalicz and Judit Kos have drawn our attention to a number of settlements south of Miskolc,
such as Mezkvesd-Mocsolys. The pottery found in this lowland settlement can be called a mixture
of graphite painted ware of the eastern Hallstatt culture (KALICZ KOS 1998, 426 g. 3; JEREM 1981)
and pottery of local production, which also has parallels on the hillforts mentioned in this article or in
Smolenice-Molpr and the lowland Late Hallstatt and Early Latne settlement of Sopron-Krautacker
19
.
Therefore Mezkvesd-Mocsolys can be dated into the second half of the 7
th
c. BC or slightly later.
This also points to a sedentary life style of the Vekerzug population of the Hungarian plain. Another
recently excavated lowland settlement in Baks-Temetpart in the county of Csongrd produced a Ha B1
occupation phase belonging to the Gva culture (SZAB 1996, 6676 gs. 1121), but also a younger
phase, which probably has lasted until the 8
th
BC (SZAB 2006, 152; 2008, 143).
18
Transdanubia: Velem St. Vid (VON MISKE 1908; MOZSOLICS 1950); Sghegy (PATEK 1968; MOZSOLICS 2000);
Moravia: tramberk-Kotou (PODBORSK 1970); Lower Franconia: Bullenheimer Berg (DIEMER 1995; HAGL
2008).
19
ibid. 430 g. 7,13; 431 g. 8,14; 433 g. 10,13; DUEK DUEK 1995; JEREM 1986.
In eastern Hungary it is furthermore very difcult to trace the development of pottery styles from
the 9
th
/8
th
to the 7
th
centuries BC as it is possible for Transdanubia (STEGMANN-RAJTR 1992) and
especially southwest Hungary and north-western Croatia (METZNER-NEBELSICK 2002, 88 ff.), where a
gradual transformation of Late Urneld to Hallstatt pottery styles can be observed in cemeteries with
a continuous occupation from the Late Urneld to the Early Hallstatt Period (Ha B2/3; Ha C1; Ha C2/
D1). If we look at the pottery found in the aforementioned strongholds of Bkkszentlszl-Nagysnc,
Felstrkny-Vrhegy, Mtraszentimre-gasvr and Szilvsvrad-Vrhegy we can however identify
pottery types in all four sites which date later then 800 BC (Fig. 3.57). I will not repeat Edit Matuz
arguments from her articles in full, most notably the one written in 2001, but rather present a somewhat
different view.
Of large importance as seen by Matuz is a sherd of early Basarabi-Style with stamped S-dcor
and hatched triangles from the hillfort of Percsny, Halyagos (MATUZ NOVKI 2002, 187 g. 113,1)
because it is evidence for a new route of communication starting in the rst half of the 8
th
or maybe
the late 9
th
c. BC
20
to more distant areas to the southeast, i.e. the Banat and Iron Gate area
21
. A specic
pottery form an open bowl with a carinated prole, a wide protruding rim and a conical body (Fig. 4)
is crucial for my argument that there was Ha C1 i.e. 8
th
/7
th
century occupation of the aforementioned
sites. The form can be called a type fossil of the Basarabi-Cultural Complex as well as the younger
Ferigile-phase of the Iron Age in the Lower Danube region (HNSEL 1976; VULPE 1986; URSUTIU
2002) (Fig. 8). Next to the Banat and Iron Gate area, where it has its origins, it is widely spread between
Slavonia in eastern Croatia along the Danube up to eastern Austria in the west as well as Moldavia and
the Middle Dnistr Region in the east.
The bowl from Felstrkny-Vrhegy (Fig. 5.1; MATUZ NOVKI 2002, 141 g. 67,1) and the
sherds from comparable vessels from Szilvsvrad-Kelemenszke (Fig. 6.2; MATUZ 1999, 62 g. 137;
71 g. 3) and Bkkszentlszl-Nagyhegy (Fig. 7.2, 45; MATUZ 1994, 45 pl. 13,5; MATUZ NOVKI
2002, 159 g. 85,3) are the best proof for the existence of pottery of the late 8
th
or rather the rst half of
the 7
th
c. BC on those sites. Further parallels can be found in Transdanubia, Lower Austria, the south-
eastern Alps or even Moldavia and the Dnepr region (Fig. 4).
The second pottery type dating to the same period (8
th
to 7
th
c. BC) is a domestic pottery storage
vessel or cooking pot in various variants, which has a slashed rims and band-shaped applications below
the rim (Figs 5.46; 6.4; 7.3, 68)
22
. It has, as Matuz had pointed out, good parallels further south, in
the Vojvodina and Syrmia as well as in the Lower Danube area (MATUZ 1994, 25; 53). The same holds
true for the sites of the Basarabi-Cultural complex in Transylvania (Fig. 8; URSUTIU 2002, gs. 12 ff.),
there they represent the most common storage vessel type.
This pottery type is typical for Bosut IIIb after Predrag Medovi (1978) in Syrmia, which is
equivalent to the classical Basarabi-Phase in the Banat and in Transylvania. It can be dated between the
late 8
th
and the 7
th
c. BC (GUM 1993, 275 ff.; GUM 1995; URSUTIU 2002, 179 ff.) and be regarded
as contemporary with Ha C1 in the eastern Hallstatt culture as several nd associations with Basarabi
pottery with complex patterns and large spiral motives indicate
23
. Again this type of storage vessel
20
I do not share the view of Olaf Drrer, who argues in favour of a higher date for the beginning of the Basarabi
complex in the Iron Gate area in the 9
th
c. BC (DRRER 2008).
21
These contacts have been discussed thoroughly in another context (METZNER-NEBELSICK 2004; 2010).
22
MATUZ 1994, pl. 12,2.6.7; 2001, 311 ff. gs. 2,3; 3; 4,13.
23
For further comparisons see the hillfort of Teleac-Drmbar in central Transylvania (VASILIEV ALDEA
CIUGUDEAN 1991, 240 g. 44,5.12; CIUGUDEAN 2009) or for several sites in the Banat region in southwest
Romania (GUM 1993, pls. 7174; 8788; 90; 92) or for southeast Hungary the settlement of Gorzsa-Major
(SZAB 1987/1988); for the Hallstatt area see the latest comprehensive account: EIBNER 2001; see also Nebelsick
1997, 72 ff..
Fig. 3. Mtraszentimre: house inventory of the Hallstatt period (after MATUZ NOVKI 2002, g. 111112).
Fig. 4. Basarabi and Ferigile type bowls from various sites of the Carpathian Basin and beyond:
13: Basarabi, RO; 4: Slite, MO; 56: Ferigile, RO; Potela, SLO;
1012: Kleinklein, A (METZNER-NEBELSICK 2002, 141 g. 55, here with references).
is present in Felstrkny-Vrhegy as well as Bkkszentlszl-Nagysnc, Mtraszentimre-gasvr
(MATUZ NOVKI 2002, 186 g. 112,7) and Szilvsvrad-Trksnc (MATUZ 1999, 80 g. 31,13).
The two-handled vessel from Felstrkny-Vrhegy (Fig. 5.3; MATUZ 2001, 311 g. 2,1; MATUZ
NOVKI 2002, 140 g. 66,2) also has excellent parallels in the Basarabi repertoire and was already
attributed by Matuz to the 8
th
c. BC (Fig. 8.4; URSUTIU 2002, g. 16)
24
.
24
For a distribution of two-handled vessels/cantharoi see METZNER-NEBELSICK 2002, 126 g. 47.
Fig. 5. Felstrkny-Vrhegy: selection of Hallstatt period pottery (Ha C)
(after MATUZ NOVKI 2002, detailed references in the text).
Fig. 6. Szilvsvrad-Trksnc (Kelemenszke): selection of Hallstatt period pottery (Ha C)
The most striking evidence for a Ha C occupation is the house inventory from Mtraszentimre-
gasvr (Fig. 4), which contained large biconical vessels with characteristic lugs above the base
(Fig. 4.69; MATUZ NOVKI 2002, 185 g. 111). They belong to a typological family with parallels
in Vekerzug or Ciumbrud group burials (CHOCHOROWSKI 1985; FERENCZI 1965)
25
as well as Hallstatt
settlements like Smolenice-Molpr in western Slovakia (DUEK DUEK 1984; 1995). Matuz and
Kllay (1993/1994) name parallels from Transylvania and quite rightly argue for a Hallstatt or Scythian
period age of the house
26
. It remains unclear, why in the later publications this line of argumentation is
not pursued or rather abandoned in favour of the drastic model of a pre-Scythian destructive impact on
the settlement structure of north-eastern Hungary.
Further comparisons lead us even further south. The metope-like ornament on the bowl from house
1 from Mtraszentimre-gasvr (Fig. 4.3) has very good parallels on two-handled vessels/cantharoi
25
For a distribution of comparable vessels see: METZNER-NEBELSICK 2002, 115 g. 42; 505 f.
26
VASILIEV 1980, 7 pl. 3; 27 pl. 4; MARINESCU 1984, gs. 4, 8, 10.
Fig. 7. Bkkszentlszl-Nagysnc: selection of Hallstatt period pottery (Ha C)
Fig. 8. Typical pottey forms from Basarabi-contexts (after Ursuiu 2002).
(Fig. 9.1; TRAJKOVI 2008, 186,10; METZNER-NEBELSICK 2002, 157 g. 63; 164 g. 69) from graves in
the Hallstatt cemetery of Doroslovo-epfeld in the Vojvodina or the cemetery of Dalj-Busija in Slavonia
(ibid. pl. 5671). Those cantharoi can be dated to the Ha C1/2 periods or horizon IIIb and IV of the Dalj-
Southeast Pannonian group (ibid. 172 ff.). In Doroslovo the motiv also occurs on several large vessels
(Kegelhalsgefe) (TRAJKOVI 2008, 195,4; 220,1).
These comparisons make it clear that house 1 from Mtraszentimre-gasvr does indeed belong to
an even later phase of hilltop occupation, that is the middle or even second half of the 7
th
c. BC when
the Vekerzug culture was established in the lowlands. To my knowledge it is so far the only hill site of
such a late date in north-eastern Hungary. The feature of a house (inventory) has parallels again in the
contemporary Smolenice-Molpr site in Slovakia.
To conclude
As a result of my comparisons it seems clear, that at least some of the Northeast Hungarian hillforts
were not only contemporary with the pre-Scythian Fzesabony-Mezcst-Group in the lowlands, but
also outlived a pre-Scythian steppe impact well into the rst half of the 7
th
c. BC and in the case of
Mtraszentimre-gasvr likely even into the second half of the 7
th
c. BC.
In consequence the thesis of the general abandonment of all the hillforts of eastern Hungary at the
end of the Urneld Period around 800 BC (after Central European terminology) as a reaction to a pre-
Scythian/Fzesabony-Mezcst-Group steppe impact can be rejected. The ramparts of the northeast
Hungarian Hillforts do not show any signs of an eastern attack or destruction as this can be concluded
later for the Hallstatt hillfort of Smolenice-Molpr in the Ha C2/D1 period by the massive amount of
Scythian type arrow heads found close to the ramparts (HELLMUTH 2006). When eastern pre-Scythian
Fig. 9. Doroslovo-epfeld, Vojvodina, selected inventory from grave 7
(after TRAJKOVI 2008, 186187). 1: ca. 1:3; 2: ca. 1:4.
artefacts are found in hill site locations in north-eastern Hungary, they are either single nd deposits or
were incorporated in the local late Bronze Age hoarding patterns that means into religiously motivated
ritual behaviour of local people
27
.
What is evident and remarkable is a new cultural orientation towards the south and southeast of
the Carpathian basin, i.e. the Banat, Transylvania or the Iron Gate region. Here the formation of the
Basarabi-Cultural Complex, grounded in the tradition of older stamped ware pottery groups, can be seen
as the emergence of a powerful political entity with wide ranging ties as far east as the Dnepr region
and with exchange networks with the elites of the eastern Alpine Hallstatt culture between Carinthia
and Lower Austria in the west (METZNER-NEBELSICK 1992; Nebelsick 1997; EIBNER 2001). This new
cultural orientation may at least in some areas nonetheless coincide with a major drop in settlement
activity in general. A pollen prole from the Kis-Mohs-Lake north of Miskolc (WILLIS SMEGI et
al. 1998), for instance, indicates a substantial degradation impact, coinciding with a depletion of beech
between 1200 and 800 BC and a decrease of settlement activity after 800 BC. As I have argued before
(METZNER-NEBELSICK 1998; 2010) the degradation processes resulting from the overexploitation of
wood, need not be seen as caused by intense building activity alone
28
. Although in the 8
th
c. BC the
heyday of hillfort settlement activity seems to be over, it is interesting to note that some strongholds
obviously did survive, maybe on a smaller scale.
Very often scholars dealing with this material overlook the fact that the existing ramparts may
have been used for some time after their erection, like for example in Sopron-Burgstall in north-
western Hungary
29
. Further to the north sites located on higher elevations were also in use during the
Ha C1 period, like the Kyjatice cemetery of Cinobana near Poltr in Slovakia (FURMNEK MIT
PAVELKOV 2010, 125). Most strikingly here is the evidence of a number of iron artefacts
30
. Hillforts
with an occupation in the 8
th
and 7
th
centuries BC can also be named, like Terna-Lys str, for which
Elena Miroayov stressed a cultural link with the Babadag-Basarabi-koine (2010)
31
.
The evidence so far, however scarce, maybe interpreted in the following fashion. The rather dense
net of Late Urneld fortied settlements in the mountainous areas of the northern Carpathian fringes
in Hungary underwent a signicant change. If only a few sites or the majority continued to exist into
the 7
th
c. BC, remains to be tested by excavations. For the discussed four examples that is the case,
although in slightly different ways. The reason for this continued settlement activity may have been the
exploitation and processing of iron ore as in Cinobana or some other yet unrevealed functions. At least
for the southeast Alpine sites of Kleinklein in Styria or various hillforts in Slovenian Dolenjsko it can
be assumed that iron production formed one major aspect of the economical importance and depending
political power of the communities involved.
27
For example the Szanda hoard (METZNER-NEBELSICK 2002, pl. 133134) or a dagger of Pjatigorsk type from
the Mtra region (KEMENCZEI 2005, pl. 48 G)
28
The increase in fortications according to WILLIS SMEGI et al. (1998) points again to a historical interpretation
in favour of political unrest. But since this process started as early as around 1200 BC when according to MATUZ
NOVKI (2002) intensive fortications were not a prominent feature, other reasons like metal exploiting
and manufacturing processes are a more likely model to explain the feature of the Kis-Mohs-Lake pollen
prole. Further archaeological as well as palynological research however is needed to conrm this view. A yet
unpublished pollen prole in the ore rich mountains near Lpu and Biut in northwest Romania supports such a
hypothesis for the beginning of the 1
st
mill. BC (multidisciplinary research project under my supervision; pollen
prole by Michael Peters, LMU Mnchen).
29
Here the rampart was built in the late Urneld period but continued to be used into the Ha C1 period and in fact
was again enhanced in the late Latne period (PATEK 1982).
30
A hillfort and a settlement are recorded but remain yet to be investigated.
31
She also noticed that a presumed gap of settlement occupation in the Ha C period may be explained by the
difculty to detect pottery of this period (MIROAYOV 1987, 148).
The model proposed in this article may change our view on the cultural development in north-
eastern Hungary at the transition to the Early Iron Age. Following this proposal, it seems to be more in
tune with the west at least as far as an occupation in Ha C1 is concerned. A cultural divide remains yet
obvious. The area clearly does not belong to the east Hallstatt world, with its hill site centres of power
and huge tumulus cemeteries as status markers as well as lasting manifestations of an ancestral cult of
the ruling elites and their dependants. In north-eastern Hungary, like in many areas of the distribution
of the Basarabi Cultural-Complex or indeed the preceding Gva Culture, graves are scarce or missing
altogether.
Secondly it must be stressed that a major change or even break occurs in the second half of the
7
th
c. BC with the formation of the Vekerzug and other groups with a steppe-oriented material culture.
Secondly an expansion of the Basarabi Cultural Complex towards the north can be ascertained
32
. After
that, except for Mtraszentimre-gasvr, hill site occupation can so far no longer be attested. At that
time and in the early 6
th
c. BC the Vekerzug and other culturally similarly organised groups
33
became the
dominant political power in the eastern Carpathian Basin. Their pastoral life style, based in the lowlands
of the Danubian Plain, may not have tolerated a hill fort occupation and power base in their immediate
neighbourhood as the destruction of the even more distant site of Smolenice-Molpr indicates. Hill site
occupation only started again with the expansion of the Latne culture in the 3
rd
and 2
nd
centuries BC
(ALMSSY 2002), again changing the political constellation.
Bibliography
ALMSSY, K. 2002
Some new data on the Scythian-Celtic relationship. In: E. Jerem M. Schnfelder G. Wieland
(Hrsg.), Nord-Sd, Ost-West. Kontakte whrend der Eisenzeit in Europa. Akten der Internationalen
Tagungen der AG Eisenzeit in Hamburg und Sopron 2002. 925. Archaeolingua 17. Budapest,
Archaeolingua.
BECKER, C. 2000
Subsistenzstrategien whrend der frhen Metallzeiten im zentralkarpatische Raum neue
archozoologische Daten zur Cotofeni- und Monteoru Kultur. Prhistorische Zeitschrift 75, 6392.
BOROFFKA, N. 2005
Siedlungsmuster im bronzezeitlichen Siebenbrgen Am Beispiel des Gebiets um Aiud, jud. Alba.
In: B. Horejs R. Jung E. Kaiser B. Teran (Hrsg.), Interpretationsraum Bronze zeit. Bernhard
Hnsel von seinen Schlern gewidmet. 125142. Universittsforschungen zur Prhistorischen
Archologie 121. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt Verlag.
32
Recent excavations in the fortied settlement of imleu Silvaniei near Zalu in Northwest Romania at the Crasna
river revealed a multiphased occupation of the site, ranging from the Gva Culture, a fully developed Basarabi-
phase (Ha C) as well as a Ha C2/D phase with Ferigile as well as Vekerzug forms (lecture by Daniel V. Sana
and Ioan Bejinariu June 2011 at the conference in Satu Mare The Beginnings of the First Millenium BC in the
Tisa Plain and Transylvania. The Gva Culture). This is so far the most northwestern Basarabi-settlement ever
discovered. It is roughly only one hundred kilometres apart from the northeast Hungarian mountains in question
here. The area is furthermore adjacent to the Nyrsg/Nyr Plain with the mentioned Vekerzug settlements. For
a summary of D. V. Sanas doctoral dissertation, in which the site of imleu Silvaninei Observator and others
with Basarabi pottery are mentioned, see SANA 2010.
33
NEBELSICK 2003; also TERAN 1998 for the southeast Alpine region.
BUDINSK-KRIKA, V. MIROAYOV, E. 1992
Terna-Lys str Sdlisko z neskorej doby bronzovej a haltatskej (pokus o chronologick a
kultrne urenie). Slovensk Archeolgia 40, 4776.
CHOCHOROWSKI, J. 1985
Die Rolle der Vekerzug-Kultur (VK) im Rahmen der skythischen Einsse in Mitteleuropa.
Prhistorische Zeitschrift 60, 204271.
CIUGUDEAN, H. 2009
Bemerkungen zur Chronologie der befestigten Siedlung von Teleac. Analele Banatului S. N.
Arheologie-Istorie 17, 6775. Timioara, Muzeul Banatului.
DIEMER, G. 1995
Der Bullenheimer Berg. Materialhefte zur Bayerischen Vorgeschichte Reihe A 70. Kallmnz/Opf.,
Verlag Lassleben.
DOBIAT, C. 1990
Der Burgstallkogel von Kleinklein I. Die Ausgrabungen der Jahre 19821984. Marburger Studien
zur Vor- u. Frhgeschichte 13. Marburg.
DRRER, O. 2008
Frhe Fibelformen und der Beginn der Basarabikultur in der Umgebung des Eisernen Tores.
Germania 86, 541589.
DULAR, J. TECCO HVALA, S. 2007
South-Eastern Slovenia in the Early Iron Age. Opera Instituti Archaeologici Sloveniae 12. Ljubljana,
Zaloba ZRC.
DUEK, M. DUEK, S. 1984
Smolenice-Molpr Befestigter Frstensitz der Hallstattzeit I. Materialia Archaeologica Slovaca.
Nitra, Archeologick Ostav Slovenskej Akadmie Vied.
DUEK, M. DUEK, S. 1995
Smolenice-Molpr Befestigter Frstensitz der Hallstattzeit II. Materialia Archaeologica Slovaca.
Nitra, Archeologick Ostav Slovenskej Akadmie Vied.
EIBNER, A. 2001
Der Donau-Drau-Save-Raum im Spiegel gegenseitiger Einunahme und Kommunikation
in der frhen Eisenzeit. Zentralorte entlang der Argonautenstrae. In: A. Lippert (Hrsg.), Die
Drau-, Mur- und Raab-Region im 1. vorchristlichen Jahrtausend. Akten des Internationalen und
Interdisziplinren Symposiums vom 26. bis 29. April 2000 in Bad Radkersburg. 181190. Bonn,
Rudolf Habelt Verlag.
FALKENSTEIN, F. 1998
Feudvar II. Die Siedlungsgeschichte des Titeler Plateaus. Prhistorische Archologie in Sdosteuropa
14. Kiel, Oetker-Voges Verlag.
FERENCZI, . 1965
Cimitriul scitic de la Ciumbrud (Partea 1). Acta Musei Napocensis 2, 77105.
FURMNEK, V. MIT, V. PAVELKOV, J. 2010
The burial ground of the Kyjatice culture in Cinobana (Slovakia). In: Sz. Guba K. Tank (eds),
Rgrl kell kezdennk Studia archaeologica in honorem Pauli Patay Rgszeti tanulmnyok
Ngrd megybl Patay Pl tiszteletre. 125136. Szcsny.
GABROVEC, ST. 1994
Stina I. Siedlungsausgrabungen. Catalogii et monographiae 28. Ljubjana, Narodni Muzej.
GANYNA, O. D. 1984 (IAHHA, O. .)
Poselennja rannoskifsko doby poblyzu s. Zalissja. (Hocenennx panntocxi]ctxo on nonnsy
c. 3aniccx.) Archeolohija (pxeo.oei) 47, 6879. Kyv (Knn).
GERLACH, ST. 1998
Urnenfelderzeitliche Hhensiedlungen Nordbayerns in ihrem siedlungsgeschichtlichen Zusammen-
hang. In: K. Schmotz (Hrsg.), Vortrge des 16. Niederbayerischen Archologentages. 125156.
Rahden/Westf., Verlag Marie Leidorf.
GUM, M. 1993
Civilizaia primei epoci a erului n sud-vestul Romniei. Bibliotheca Thracologica 4. Bucureti.
GUM, M. 1995
The end of the Bronze Age and the beginning of the Early Iron Age in south-western Romania,
western Serbia and north-western Bulgaria. A short review. Thraco-Dacica 16, 99137.
HNSEL, B. 1976
Beitrge zur regionalen und chronologischen Gliederung der lteren Hallstattzeit an der unteren
Donau. Beitrge zur ur- und frhgeschichtlichen Archologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraums 1617.
Bonn, Rudolf Habelt Verlag.
HNSEL, B. MEDOVI, P. 1991
Vorbericht ber die jugoslawisch-deutschen Ausgrabungen in der Siedlung von Feudvar bei Moorin
(Gem. Titel, Vojvodina) von 19861990. Bronzezeit Vorrmische Eisenzeit. Bericht der Rmisch-
Germanischen Kommission 72, 45203.
HAGL, M. 2008
Ein urnenfelderzeitlicher Depotfund vom Bullenheimer Berg in Franken (Hort F). Bayerische
Vorgeschichtsbltter Beiheft 19. Mnchen, Verlag C. H. Beck.
HANSEN, S. 1991
Studien zu den Metalldeponierungen whrend der Urnenfelderzeit im Rhein-Main-Gebiet.
Universittsforschungen zur Prhistorischen Archologie 5. Bonn, Rudolf Habelt Verlag.
HANSEN, S. 1994
Studien zu den Metalldeponierungen der lteren Urnenfelderzeit zwischen Rhnetal und
Karpatenbecken. Universittsforschungen zur Prhistorischen Archologie 21. Bonn, Rudolf Habelt
Verlag.
HELLERSCHMID, I. 2006
Die urnenfelder-/hallstattzeitliche Wallanlage von Stillfried an der March. Ergebnisse der
Ausgrabungen 19691989 unter besonderer Bercksichtigung des Kulturwandels an der
Epochengrenze Urnenfelder-/Hallstattkultur. Wien, Verlag der sterreichischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften.
HELLMUTH, A. 2006
Pfeilspitzen. Untersuchungen zu den sogenannten skythischen Pfeilspitzen aus der befestigten
Hhensiedlung von Smolenice-Molpr. Universittsforschungen zur Prhistorischen Archologie
128. Bonn, Rudolf Habelt Verlag.
HONTI, Sz. 1992
Archologische Forschungen im Jahre 1989, Nagyberki-Szalacska. Archaelogiai rtest 119, 100.
HORNK, M. STEGMANN-RAJTR, S. 2008
Osdlenie strednho ponitria v neskorej dobe bronzovej a vasnej dobe eleznej vyuitie GIS-analz.
Besiedlung am Mittellauf der Nitra whrend der Sptbronze- und Frheisenzeit: Ergebnisse einer
GIS-Analyse. tudijn Zvesti Archeologickho stavu Akademie Vied 43, 4352.
ISTVNOVITS, E. 1997
Nyregyhza-Manda-bokor. Iron Age settlement from the 5
th
4
th
century B.C. In: T. Kovcs A.
Anders P. Raczky (eds), Paths into the Past. Rescue Excavations on the M3 Motorway. 80.
Budapest, Magyar Nemzeti Mzeum, Etvs Lornd Tudomnyegyetem Rgszettudomnyi
Intzet.
JEREM, E. 1981
Zur Spthallstatt- und Frhlatnezeit in Transdanubien. In: Die Hallstattkultur. Bericht ber das
Symposium in Steyr 1980 aus Anla der Internationalen Ausstellung des Landes Obersterreich.
105136. Linz, Obersterreichischer Landesverlag.
JEREM, E. 1986
Bemerkungen zur Siedlungsgeschichte der Spthallstatt- und Frhlatnezeit im Ostalpenraum.
In: E. Jerem (Hrsg.), Hallstatt-Kolloquium Veszprm 1984. 107123; 363365. Mitteilungen des
Archologischen Instituts der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften Beiheft 3. Budapest.
JEREM, E. LIPPERT, A. 1996 (Hrsg.)
Die Osthallstattkultur. Akten des Internationalen Symposiums, Sopron, 10.14. Mai 1994.
Archaeolingua 7. Budapest, Archeolingua.
JEREM, E. URBAN, O. H. 2000
Hhensiedlungen Befestigungen Zentralsiedlungen. Prozesse der Urbanisierung im Donau-
Karpaten-Raum. In: V. Guichard S. Sievers O. H. Urban (Hrsg.), Les processus durbanisation
lge du fer. Eisenzeitliche Urbanisationsprozesse. Tagung Glux-en-Glenne 1998. 157164.
Collection Bibracte 4. Glux-en-Glenne, Centre Archologique Europen du Mont-Beuvray.
KALICZ, N. KOS, J. 1998
Siedlungsfunde der Frheisenzeit aus Nordostungarn. In: B. Hnsel J. Machnik (Hrsg.), Das
Karpatenbecken und die osteuropische Steppe. Nomadenbewegungen und Kulturaustausch in den
vorchristlichen Metallzeiten (4000500 v. Chr.). Symposium Mogilany 1995. 423436. Prhistorische
Archologie in Sdosteuropa 12. Mnchen Rahden in Westf., Verlag Marie Leidorf.
KAUBA, M. LEVICKIJ, O. 2009 (KAFA, M. HEBHK, O.)
Ho cneam panne ronapno cepornnnxno xepamnxn Bocrno-xapnarcxoro pernona (ber die
Folgen der frhen scheibengedrehten Keramik der stlichen Karpatenregion). In: Cmapormuocmi
cmenoeoeo p:opuo+op i Kp+y. Mamepia. rouqepeui poo.e+ criqo-cap+amcro
apxeo.oei nieui:uoeo np:opuo+op (o 110-pix s nx napoxennx F. M. Ipaxona).
3anopixxx. 247260.
KEMENCZEI, T. 1984
Die Sptbronzezeit Nordostungarns. Archaeologia Hungarica 51. Budapest.
KEMENCZEI, T. 2005
Funde ostkarpatenlndischen Typs im Karpatenbecken. Prhistorische Bronzefunde (PBF) XX: 10.
Stuttgart, Steiner Verlag.
MARZ, B. 1996
Pcs-Jakabhegy Ausgrabungsergebnisse und die Fragen der Frhhallstattkultur in Sdost-
pannonien. In: E. Jerem A. Lippert (Hrsg.), Die Osthallstattkultur. Akten des Internationalen
Symposiums, Sopron, 10.14. Mai 1994. 255265. Archaeolingua 7. Budapest, Archaeolingua.
MARINESCU, G. 1984
Die jngere Hallstattzeit in Nordostsiebenbrgen. Dacia 28, 4783.
MATUZ, E. D. 1992
A kyjaticei kultra fldvra Felstrkny-Vrhegyen (Die Erdburg der Kyjatice-Kultur auf dem
Berg Felstrkny-Vrhegy). Agria 27/28, 584.
MATUZ, E. D. 1994
A Kyjaticei kultra fldvra Bkkszentlszl-Nagysncon (Erdburg der Kyjatice-Kultur in
Bkkszentlszl-Nagysnc). A Herman Ott Mzeum vknyve 32, 954.
MATUZ, E. D. 1999
A Kyjatice kultra fldvra Szilvsvrad-Trksncon. (Der Erdwall der Kyjatice-Kultur in
Szilvsvrad-Trksnc). Agria 35, 584.
MATUZ, E. D. 2001
Archologische Denkmler der stlichen und sdlichen Beziehungen im Fundmaterial der Erdwlle
der Kyjatice-Kultur in Nordungarn. In: C. Kacs (Hrsg.), Der nordkarpatische Raum in der
Bronzezeit. Symposium Baia Mare 7.10. Oktober 1998. 299313. Muzeul Judetean Maramure
Bibliotheca Marmatia 1. Baia Mare, Editura Cornelius.
MATUZ, E. D. KLLAY, . SZ. 1993/1994
Ks bronzkori-kora vaskori teleplsrszlet Mtraszentimre-gasvron (Ein sptbronzezeitliches,
frheisenzeitliches Siedlungsdetail in Mtraszentimre-gasvr). Agria. Az Egri Dob Istvn
Vrmzeum vknyve 29/30, 4365.
MATUZ, E. D. NOVKI, GY. 2002
Sptbronzezeitliche, frheisenzeitliche Erdwlle in Nordungarn. Inventaria praehistorica Hungariae
10. Budapest, Magyar Nemzeti Mzeum.
MEDOVI, P. 1978
Naselja starijeg gvozdenog doba u jugoslovenskom Podunavlu. Dissertationes et monographiae 22.
Beograd.
MEDOVI, P. 1991
Die eisenzeitliche Besiedlung und ihre Funde. In: B. Hnsel P. Medovi (Hrsg.), Vorbericht ber
die jugoslawisch-deutschen Ausgrabungen in der Siedlung von Feudvar bei Moorin (Gem. Titel,
Vojvodina) von 19861990. Bronzezeit Vorrmische Eisenzeit. Bericht der Rmisch-Germanischen
Kommission 72, 144151.
METZNER-NEBELSICK, C. 1992
Gefe mit basaraboider Ornamentik aus Frg. In: A. Lippert K. Spindler (Hrsg.), Festschrift
zum 50 jhrigen Bestehen des Instituts fr Ur- u. Frhgeschichte der Leopold-Franzens-Universitt
Innsbruck. 349383. Universittsforschungen zur Prhistorischen Archologie 8. Bonn, Rudolf
Habelt Verlag.
Abschied von den Thrako-Kimmeriern? Neue Aspekte der Interaktion zwischen karpaten-
lndischen Kulturgruppen der spten Bronze- und frhen Eisenzeit mit der osteuropischen
Steppenkoine. In: B. Hnsel J. Machnik (eds), Das Karpatenbecken und die osteuropische Steppe.
Nomadenbewegungen und Kulturaustausch in den vorchristlichen Metallzeiten (4000500 v. Chr.).
Symposium Mogilany 1995. 361422. Prhistorische Archologie in Sdosteuropa 12. Mnchen/
Rahden in Westf., Verlag Marie Leidorf.
Der thrako-kimmerische Formenkreis aus der Sicht der Urnenfelder- und Hallstattzeit im
sdstlichen Pannonien. Vorgeschichtliche Forschungen 23. Rahden/Westf., Verlag Marie Leidorf.
Studien zur bronze- und frheisenzeitlichen Herrschaftssymbolik zwischen Skandinavien,
Karpatenbecken, Kaukasus und den Steppen Eurasiens am Beispiel des Stilkreises von Michakw.
Habilitationsschrift Berlin 2004. In preparation
Aspects of mobility and migration in the eastern Carpathian Basin and adjacent areas in the early Iron
Age (10
th
7
th
centuries B.C.). In: K. Dzigielewski M. S. Przybya A. Gawlik (eds), Migration
in Bronze and Early Iron Age Europe. 121151. Prace Archeologiczne 63. Krakw: Ksigarnia
Akademicka.
MIROAYOVA, E. 1987
Problematika osdlenia vchodnho Slovenska v dobe haltatskej (Settlement of East Slovakia in the
Hallstatt Period). Slovensk Archeologia 35, 107164.
MIROAYOVA, E. 2010
Inuence of foreign environment on the cultural developement of the upper Tisza Regions in the
Hallstatt period. In: B. Gediga W. Piotrovski (Hrsg.), Rolle der wichtigsten Kulturzentren in der
Gestaltung des Kulturbildes Mitteleuropas in den frhen Perioden der Eisenzeit. 175188. Biskupin
Wrocaw.
VON MISKE, K. 1908
Die prhistorische Ansiedlung Velem St. Vid. Wien.
MOZSOLICS, A. 1950
Der Goldfund von Velem-Szentvid. Ein Beitrag zur Metallkunst der lteren Hallstattzeit. Praehistorica
1. Basel.
MOZSOLICS, A. 2000
Bronzefunde aus Ungarn. Depotfundhorizonte Hajdbszrmny, Romnd und Bkkszentlszl.
Prhistorische Archologie in Sdosteuropa 17. Kiel, Oetker-Voges Verlag.
MLLER-KARPE, H. 1959
Beitrge zur Chronologie der Urnenfelderkultur nrdlich und sdlich der Alpen. Rmisch-
Germanische Forschungen 22. Berlin, de Gruyter.
NEBELSICK, L. 1997
Die Kalenderberggruppe der Hallstattzeit am Nordostalpenrand. In: L. D. Nebelsick A. Eibner
E. Lauermann J.-W. Neugebauer (Hrsg.), Hallstattkultur im Osten sterreichs. 9128.
Wissenschaftliche Schriftenreihe Niedersterreich 106/107/108/109. St. Plten, NP Buchverlag.
NEBELSICK, L. 2003
Ein Kontext fr den Goldhort von Witaszkowo/Vettersfelde (A context for the gold hoard from
Witaszkowo/Vettersfelde). In: M. Flashar (Hrsg.), Adolf Furtwngler. Der Archologe. 6379.
Schriften der Archologischen Sammlung Freiburg 8. Feiburg/Br.
NOVKI, GY. BARZ, CS. 2000
Oskori s kzpkori erdtett telepek, vrak Heves megye Mtrn kvli terletn. Agria. Az Egri
Dob Istvn Vrmzeum vknyve 36, 546.
NOVKI, GY. SRKZY, S. FELD, I. 2007
Borsod-Abaj-Zempln megye vrai az skortl a kuruc korig. Magyarorszg vrainak topogrja
1. Budapest Miskolc, Castrum Bene Egyeslet Herman Ott Mzeum.
NOVKI, GY. BARZ, CS. DNES, J. FELD, I. SRKZY, S. 2009
Heves megye vrai az skortl a kuruc korig. Magyarorszg vrainak topogrja 2. Budapest
Eger, Castrum Bene Egyeslet Herman Ott Mzeum.
PARE, Ch. 1998
Zum bergang von der Bronze- zur Eisenzeit in Mitteleuropa, I. Jahrbuch Rmisch-Germanisches
Zentralmuseum Mainz 45, 293433.
PARZINGER, H. STEGMANN-RAJTR, S. 1988
Smolenice-Molpr und der Beginn skythischer Sachkultur in der Sdwestslowakei. Prhistorische
Zeitschrift 63, 162178.
PATEK, E. 1968
Die Urnenfelderkultur in Transdanubien. Archaeologia Hungarica 44. Budapest.
PATEK, E. 1973
Bericht ber die Ausgrabung des sptbronzezeitlichen Burgwalls von Trksnc bei Szilvsvrad.
Mitteilungen des Archologischen Instituts der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 4, 25
30.
PATEK, E. 1982
Neue Untersuchungen auf dem Burgstall bei Sopron. Bericht der Rmisch-Germanischen Kommission
63, 105177.
PATEK, E. 1993
Westungarn in der Hallstattzeit. Acta humaniora 7. Weinheim.
PODBORSK, V. 1970
Sdmhren in der Sptbronzezeit und an der Schwelle zur Eisenzeit. Brno, Universita J. E.
Purkyn.
RIND, M. M. 1999
Der Frauenberg oberhalb Kloster Weltenburg. I: Hhenbefestigungen der Bronze- und Urnenfelder-
zeit. Regensburger Beitrge zur Prhistorischen Archologie 6. Bonn, Rudolf Habelt Verlag.
ROMSAUER, P. 1999
Zur Frage der Westgrenze der Mezcst-Gruppe. In: E. Jerem I. Poroszlai (eds), Archaeology of the
Bronze and Iron Age. Proceedings of the International Archaeological Conference Szzhalombatta,
37 October 1996. 167176. Archaeolingua 9. Budapest, Archaeolingua.
SANA, D. V. 2010
Early Iron Age in imleu Depression and Surrounding Areas. Gva Type Discoveries. PhD thesis
abstract. Alba Iulia. http://www.uab.ro/upload/1716_Daniel%20Sana.%20Rezumatul%20tezei.
ENG.pdf
SMIRNOVA, G. I. 2001 (CMHPHOBA, I. H.)
Zakluitelnyj sezon rabot na ranneskifskom poselenii u s. Dolinjany (3axnmnrentnt ceson
paor na pannecxn]cxom nocenennn y c. onnnxnt). Archeologieski Sbornik St. Peterburg (px.
oopur .-emepovpe) 35, 5973.
SMOLNIK, R. 1996
Der Burgstallkogel bei Kleinklein II. Die Keramik der vorgeschichtlichen Siedlung. Marburg.
STEGMANN-RAJTR, S. 1992
Sptbronze- und frheisenzeitliche Fundgruppen des mittleren Donaugebietes. Bericht der Rmisch-
Germanischen Kommission 73, 29179.
Spinnen und Weben in Smolenice-Molpr Ein Beitrag zum wirtschaftlichen und religis-kultischen
Leben der Bewohner des hallstattzeitlichen Frstensitzes. Slovensk Archeologia 46, 263287.
Kulturelle Beziehungen des hallstattzeitlichen Burgwalls Smolenice-Molpr. Pravk N.. 10, 457
471.
Bronzov hroty pov v doby haltatskej z hradiska ibrica (Hallstattzeitliche Bronzepfeilspitzen
vom Burgwall von ibrica). tudijn Zvesti Archeologickho stavu Slovenskej Akademie Vied 35,
4551.
Die slowakisch-deutschen Ausgrabungen auf der befestigten Hhensiedlung titre-ibrica
(K. Nitra). 503522. Archeolok Vzkumi Jin echy. Suppl. 1. esk Budjovice.
SZAB, G. 1987/1988
Kora vaskori bekarcolt, bepecstelt dszts kermia leletek Hdmezvsrhely Gorzsa-Cukormajor
lelhelyen (Frheisenzeitliche, eingeritzte, eingestempelte Keramikfunde aus Hdmezvsrhely
Gorzsa-Cukormajor). Archaeologiai rtest 114/115, 8699.
SZAB, G. V. 1996
A Csorva-Csoport s a Gva-Kultra kutatsnak problmi nhny Csongrd megyei leletegyttes
alapjn. Mra Ferenc Mzeum vknyve Studia Archaeologica 2, 9109.
SZAB, G. V. 2006
Baks, Temetpart (Csongrd megye). In: Rgszeti Kutatsok Magyarorszgon Archaeological
investigations in Hungary 2006 [2007]. 152.
SZAB, G. V. 2008
Baks, Temetpart (Csongrd megye). In: Rgszeti Kutatsok Magyarorszgon Archaeological
investigations in Hungary 2008 [2009]. 143.
SZAB, G. V. 2009
Fmkeres mszeres kutatsok kelet-magyarorszgi ks bronzkori s kora vaskori lelhelyeken.
Beszmol az ELTE Rgszettudomnyi Intzete ltal indtott bronzkincs kutat program 2009. vi
eredmnyeirl (Metal detection investigations at Eastern Hungarian Late Bronze Age and Early Iron
Age sites. Report on the results of the bronze hoard exploration project of the Institute of Archeology
of ELTE in 2009). In: Rgszeti Kutatsok Magyarorszgon Archaeological investigations in
Hungary 2009 [2010]. 1938. Budapest.
TANK, K. VADAY, A. 2010
Ks bronzkori s ks vaskori telepleletek Mtraszls-Kirlydombrl. In: Sz. Guba K. Tank
(szerk.), Rgrl kell kezdennk Studia archaeologica in honorem Pauli Patay Rgszeti
tanulmnyok Ngrd megybl Patay Pl tiszteletre. 137194. Szcsny.
TERAN, B. 1990
Stareja elezna doba na Slovenskem tajerskem. The Early Iron Age in Slovenian Styria. Catalogi
et monographiae 25. Ljubljana, Narodni Muzej.
TERAN, B. 1998
Auswirkungen des skythisch geprgten Kulturkreises auf die hallstattzeitlichen Kulturgruppen
Pannoniens und des Ostalpenraumes In: B. Hnsel J. Machnik (eds), Das Karpatenbecken und
die osteuropische Steppe. Nomadenbewegungen und Kulturaustausch in den vorchristlichen
Metallzeiten (4000500 v. Chr.). Symposium Mogilany 1995. 511560. Prhistorische Archologie
in Sdosteuropa 12. Mnchen Rahden in Westf., Verlag Marie Leidorf.
TRACHSEL, M. 2004
Untersuchungen zur relativen und absoluten Chronologie der Hallstattzeit. Universittsforschungen
zur prhistorischen Archologie 104. Bonn, Rudolf Habelt Verlag.
TRAJKOVI, D. 2008
epfeld nekropola starijeg gvozdenog doba kod Doroslovo Early Iron Age necropolis at
Doroslova. Sombor, Gradskij Muzej.
URBAN, O. 2011
Besiedeln Befestigen Beherrschen. Der Braunsberg ein (vor)keltisches Zentrum an der Donau.
Archologie in sterreich 22/1, 5469.
URSUTIU, A. 2002
Etapa mijlocie a primei vrste a erului n Transilvania (cercetrile de la Barnadea, com. Bahnea,
jud. Mure.). Cluj-Napoca.
VASILIEV, V. 1980
Sciii Agatri pe teritoriul Romniei. Cluj-Napoca, Editura Dacia.
VASILIEV, V. ALDEA, I. A. CIUGUDEAN, H. 1991
Civilzaia dacic timpurie n aria intracarpatic a Romniei. Contribuii arheologice: Aezarea
forticat de la Teleac. Cluj-Napoca, Editura Dacia.
VULPE, A. 1986
Zur Entstehung der geto-dakischen Zivilisation. Die Basarabi-Kultur. Dacia N. S. 30, 4989.
WILLIS, K. J. SMEGI, P. BRAUN, M. BENNETT, K. D. TTH, A. 1998
Prehistoric land degradation in Hungary: who, how and why? Antiquity 72, 101113.

Metzner Nebelsick

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Metzner Nebelsick

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

BUDAPEST 2012

Archaeological, Cultural and

Potrebbero piacerti anche