Kurgan Studies - MTA Régészeti Intézet

Kurgan StudiesAn environmental and archaeological multiproxystudy of burial mounds in the Eurasian steppe zoneEdited byÁkos PetAttila BarcziBAR International Series 22382011

Published byArchaeopressPublishers of British Archaeological ReportsGordon House276 Banbury RoadOxford OX2 7EDEnglandbar@archaeopress.comwww.archaeopress.comBAR S2238Kurgan Studies: An environmental and archaeological multiproxy study of burial mounds in theEurasian steppe zone© Archaeopress and the individual authors 2011ISBN 978 1 4073 0802 9Cover photograph courtesy of Attila BarcziPrinted in England by 4edge, HockleyAll BAR titles are available from:Hadrian Books Ltd122 Banbury RoadOxfordOX2 7BPEnglandwww.hadrianbooks.co.ukThe current BAR catalogue with details of all titles in print, prices and means of payment is availablefree from Hadrian Books or may be downloaded from www.archaeopress.com

Kurgan Studies: An environmental and archaeological multiproxy study of burial mounds in the Eurasian steppe zoneÁ. PETŐ and A. BARCZI (Eds.). BAR International Series 2238, Paper 4. pp, 71-131.Hajdúnánás–Tedej–Lyukas-halom - An interdisciplinary survey of a typical kurgan from theGreat Hungarian Plain region: a case study(The revision of the kurgans from the territory of Hungary)Tünde HORVÁTHHungarian Academy of Sciences, Archaeological Institute, Úri u. 49., Budapest, 1014 – HungaryE-mail: valdemar@archeo.mta.huAbstract: In the first part of the paper a case study ispresented: the multidisciplinar excavation of Hajdúnánás-Tedej-Lyukas-halom ,1 , 2 one of the typical Pit–Gravekurgans in the Great Hungarian Plain region. The secondpart of the study would like to illustrate the Late CopperAge and Early Bronze Age 1-2 periods with theBoleráz/Baden, Coţofen, Pit–Grave, Makó and Nyírségcultures at north-eastern Hungary, their connection withthe geographical, hydrogeological and climaticparameters of this territory. The focus is on the funeralcustoms, settlement patterns, and archaeologicalmaterials of the researched cultures and on theinvestigation of their common features in a hypoteticalsymbiosis, or succesive period of their life.Keywords: Pit–Grave kurgans, Carpathian Basin, GreatHungarian Plain, Late Copper Age/Early Bronze Age,Hajdúnánás–Tedej–Lyukas-halomINTRODUCTIONThe survey area is located in north-east Hungary,between the Nyírség and the Hortobágy, in the Hajdúságregion, more closely in the Hajdúhát microregion. Thearchaeological site is situated on the ridge of an alluvialfan covered by loess and loess-clay, at an elevation of 93-162 m above sea level. The pre-modern hydrologicalcircumstances of the area were defined by the network ofseveral small abounding streams such as the Vidi, Fürj,Utas, or Kengyel in the drainage area of the HortobágyRiver. The direction of the wind is usually north, northeastand south, south-east. The study region belongs tothe vegetation region of the Great Hungarian Plain.Thisregion belongs to the Tiszántúl/Crisicum floristicprovince in the Eupannonicum floristic region, itspotential ecological association is the oak-ash-elm foreststeppe (Querco-Ulmetum), alkali oak-forests(Pseudovino-Quercetum roboris), and the oak-mapleforests on loess (Acerei-tatarici-Quercetum), while1 In this paper the burial is consequently named as a kurgan, referring tothose eastern populations who arrived to the Carpathian Basin duringthe Copper Age and the Bronze Age from the Azovean-Pontus steppe,characterized by kurgan burials. As this term is not only present in mostSlavic languages, but its adoption as well as meaning is deeply rooted inHungarian language, I will use this expression throughout the textinstead of the other popular phrase “kunhalom” (Cumanian mound),avoiding the historically erroneous connections of these features to theMedieval Cuman population. Moreover, the term “kurgan” preciselyprecludes the possibility of substituting the prehistoric burials fornatural mounds, the Neolithic as well as Bronze Age tell-settlements,and also the earth mounds from the Árpádian period. See Tóth 2004;and Tóth in this volume for further details!2 The present paper was supported by the OTKA PUB-C 81728 found.significant part of the area is covered by sandy grasslands(Festucetum vaginatae, Festuco Corynephoretum). Thearea is defined by good quality soils formed on loessdeposits; the most typical of them is the calcareouschernozem soil. The climate of the micro region ismoderately warm and dry (Marosi and Somogyi 1990,268-275). The Lyukas-halom is situated in the so calledUtasér-field in the boundary of the towns of Hajdúnánásand Tiszavasvári (also referred to as Büd andSzentmihály in the Medieval Ages), at the border ofHajdú-Bihar and Szabolcs-Szatmár counties. The EOVcoordinates are: X: 824397, Y: 288968; the elevationabove sea level is 103,3 m, the relative height of themound is 6,5 m (Figure 1). The kurgan is presented in theFirst Ordinance Survey as Szántó-halom (literally Arablemound) (Figure 13-14) 3 – and this type of land use waseven identified during the research as modern ploughtrace features in the lower strata of the recent soil. 4 Themound was used as a boundary mark during the centuries,and recently acacia trees occupied its surface. Before thepresent research, the following data was known about thesite: according to the typology of Kalicz (1968, 28.) thiskurgan belongs to the high, so-called Szabolcs typemounds, with large ground space (additional examplesfor this category are: Buj–Feketehalom, Tiszeszlár–Potyhalom, Nagykálló–Nagykorhány, all excavated by A.Jósa (1897). The deposit zone of the mound is clearlyvisible on the surface, defining an area of 14700 m 2 , fromwhich area the body of the mound occupies only 2200m 2 . Due to the acacia forest, the survived part of themound is in good condition, but unfortunately the treesdestroyed its original steppe vegetation (Barczi et al.2004a). Presently, the territory of the mound is exemptedfrom arable farming, but the neighbouring area isintensively cultivated. The north-western part of thekurgan, in the Szabolcs boundary is cultivated by aprivate owner from Tiszavasvári, while the south-easternpart is located in Hajdú-Bihar County, and managed bythe Tedej Ltd.In 1993, during a field survey project connected to theproposed route “A” of the M3 motorway, Márta Sz.Máthé (†) and Zsigmond Hajdú, archaeologists from theDirectorate of Debrecen County Museums first observed3 First Ordinance Survey, 1782-1785. The mound named as Szántóhalom(Arable Mound) was labeled as Lyukas-halom (literallyHollowed Mound) in the Second Ordinance Survey (1819-1869), whichsuggests that the earliest large soil exploitation pits observed in theupper levels of the kurgan can be dated to the period between the twosurveys (Figure 4; 13-14).4 Layer 9 (recent soil B-horizon, Figure 3-4).71

T. HORVÁTHthat the southern part of the mound located in Hajdú-Bihar County was severely disturbed. In September 2000,the calculated destruction was around 30-60% as it wasmeasured by the specialists of the Hortobágy NationalPark. Thus, the kurgan became listed among the mostendangered monuments of the region. The investigationrevealed that the exploitation of the soil, the throughtraffic and the expansion of acacia are those factors,which mostly responsible for the damaged condition ofthe mound. At the same time, the kurgan was inventoriedas one of the most important scenic values of the region(Horváth Tibor 2008). 5 Ten years after the firstarchaeological report, in 2003, István Fodor, leadingarchaeologist and honorary director of the HungarianNational Museum visited the site together with a localactivist, István Bacskai, during the rescue excavationprojects of the M3 motorway, and sadly experienced thatthe mound was further destroyed. 6 Despite the law onNatural Reserves coming into force in 1998, whichensured the protection of all prehistoric mounds (tumuli,kurgans, tells), by 2003 the southern “peak” of thekurgan, that is one fourth of the mound was missing(Figure 2.1). 7 Due to the exploitation of soil in the northeasternpart of the mound, an extensive foxhole systembecame apparent too, which further disturbed thearchaeological features. Moreover, the long-establishedpath, which passed over the kurgan from the north andfrom the west crossed the central part of the mound, cutand severely condensed the original layers of thearchaeological site. Additional robbers’ pits were alsoobserved in the modern soil, but, apart from theirconsiderable depth at places, these cut only the third,loose and lighter deposited layer of the kurgan. Despiteall destruction, the general survey suggested that themound was built over several periods, and its lowerstratum, as well as the primary burial has not beenaffected. In the expectation of finding these undisturbedfeatures, a research team was organized, aiming at thepreparation and documentation of the visible layersthrough an interdisciplinary approach, in order to put therecords into an extensive framework ofgeomorphological, climatic, environmental, as well aschronological database. 85 In 1996 an extensive research started in Hungary to survey all existingkurgans (Cuman mound-project). The results were digitalized andavailable in Delphi programme, with the help of the software entitledCadastre of Listed Cuman mounds I. (Tóth and Tóth 2004, see moredetails Tóth and Tóth in this volume).6 Here I would like to express my thanks and gratitude for the help andthe information. The amount of the missing soil was calculated as 1500m 3 , which had to be re-purchased during the recultivation in 2009because of the illegal exploitation.7 From the 24/1991 Order of the Houses of the Parliament, and3515/1991 Order of the Prime Minister, later the Act LIII of 1996,Chapter III, II. §.8 The archaeological coordinator was the Archaeological Institute of theHungarian Academy of Sciences (project leader: Eszter Bánffy, D.Sc.),the appointed representatives were Tünde Horváth and János Dani onbehalf of the local Hajdú–Bihar County Museums Directorate,Debrecen. The soil macromorphological, palaeoenviromental researchwas directed by Attila Barczi from the Szent István University(Gödöllő), Department of Nature Conservation and Landscape Ecology,the malacological survey was led by Pál Sümegi from the University ofSzeged, Department of Geology and Palaeontology. The radiocarbondates were measured by Mihály Molnár, Institute of Nuclear ResearchAt last, due to the described specific circumstances, theinvestigation of the selected site had become one of theemblematic examples of the kurgan surveys in presentday Hungary, which resembled all difficulties of amodern society, including both legal and human attitudes.The targeted investigation was carried out in two researchseasons, which will be presented here as the excavationcampaigns of 2004 and 2009. 9EXCAVATION RESULTS OF THEHAJDÚNÁNÁS–TEDEJ–LYUKAS-HALOMThe first excavation campaign in 2004The first archaeological research was completed from the4th to the 13th October in 2004. The basic aim of thispreliminary research was the general documentation andthe survey of the mound, which was completed by anexcavation, namely the mound was investigated throughan east-west directed cross section. The archaeologicaltrench was intended to be positioned in the central line ofthe kurgan, as the direct continuation of the formerdisturbance in the south-eastern part (Figure 2). 10The botanical analyses resulted 46 species at the site andin its close surroundings. 11 The only protected species ofthe kurgan is the Aster sedifolius subspecies sedifolius.The undisturbed part of the mound had been planted withacacia trees once ago. According to the observations, fourdifferent arborescent and grassy vegetations could bedetected. Beginning from the north, the basic species ofthe abundant undergrowth is Elymus repens, whichcovers almost 60% of the surveyed territory, and Bromussterilis. Among monocotyledons, insignificantappearance of Poa angustifolia was documented, whichis one of the main taxa of dry loess steppes. Theunderstory vegetation is represented by vagueappearances of Rosa canina. The north-eastern samplearea is noticeably distinct from the northern part. In thetree strata, the cover of acacia is around 60% too, whileof the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (Debrecen), and Tomasz Goslarfrom the Poznan Radiocarbon Laboratory. Additional consultingpartners were Prof. Nina Morgunova (Orenburg State PedagogicalUniversity, Department of Russian History; Archaeological Laboratory)archaeologist, Dr. Olga Khokhlova (Institute of Physical, Chemical andBiological Problems of Soil Science, Russian Academy of Sciences),palaeopedologist, and Dr. Alexandra A. Golyeva (Institute ofGeography, Russian Academy of Sciences) palaeoecologist. The pollensurvey was carried out by Linda Scott Cummings (Palaeo-ResearchInstitute, USA).9 Here I would like to thank to all contributors of the research project fortheir devotional work and express my gratitude to that they allowed meto use their results when writing this article.10 Excavation permits: Hortobágyi National Park 22-68/2004, CulturalHeritage Office 480/3105/5/2004. The project was funded by thefollowing grants: OTKA T-038272, Bólyai scholarship, TéT (HungarianScience and Technology Foundation) Inter-Governmental Co-operationof Hungary and the Russian Federation (OMFB-00781/2005; projectcode:RUS-7/2004), and the international scholarly collaborationbetween the Archaeological Institute of the Hungarian Academy ofSciences and Institute of Geography, as well as the Institute of Physical,Chemical and Biological Problems of Soil Science, Russian Academyof Sciences.11 The coenological sampling was carried out by Károly Penksza, whomI am especially grateful for permitting access to his findings (seePenksza et al. for more details in this volume).72

Hajdúnánás–Tedej–Lyukas-halom–An interdisciplinary survey of a typical kurgan from the Great Hungarian Plainregion: a case study (The revision of the kurgans from the territory of Hungary)50% of the understory vegetation is defined by Sambucusnigra. Among the few documented steppe vegetationAgropyron repens was the dominant species. In thesouthern direction, all vegetation layers changeconsiderably, the undergrowth is defined by Anthriscuscerefolium and Bromus sterilis, in the understory mainlySambucus nigra was found, while in the tree strata thecover of acacia declines. The most characteristicvegetation element in the peak region of the kurgan isAgropyron repens, while hardly any Bromus sterilis wasdetected. Among dicotyledons, Carduus acanthoidesoccurs frequently. Accordingly, the floristic vegetation ofthe kurgan can be described as being destitute in species,and consists of severely degraded plant communities.Concerning loess steppe vegetation the degraded stocksof Salvio-Festucetum rupicolae formations are thepredominant species, while the body of the kurgan istypified by Bromo sterili-Robinetum communities. Thenumerous intrusions and destructions such as the diggingof pits and the plantation of acacia trees transformed theoriginal character of the habitat. More unluckily, themound is connected to the neighbouring plough fieldswithout considerable buffer zone.In the same year, all the nearby kurgans around theLyukas-halom were mapped in the Hajdúnánás area, inorder to select additional objects for a plannedinvestigation in the near future. 1212 The project was supported by István Bacskai and the LigetszépeConservationist Association of Hajdúnánás, whose familiarity with thelocal circumstances largely helped the research project. Many thanks fortheir assistance! Here I would like to refer to some of their informationon additional mounds in the close neighbourhood of the researched site:1. Testhalom or Rácdomb: located at the edge of the town Hajdúnánásaccording to the local popular beliefs, Rác people of Vid were buriedthere who were killed by local Hajdú troops. It is a small mound, with astretching ridge overgrown by a grassy vegetation, which is not akurgan.2. Nagy-Vidi halom. Without further investigation it cannot be statedwhether it is kurgan or/and a tell. One side seems to be intact, smallerkurgan, the other part is severly and continuously disturbed andflattened larger tell–settlement part. The close surroundings of themound is intensively cultivated, significant finds were collected (sherds,animal bone fragments, stone tools) dating to the Tisza- or morecharacteristically to the Tiszapolgár horizon. Not far from this mound,the line of a prehistoric meander was detected. Thus, most probably aTiszapolgár settlement was located along the waterflow. 3. Köveshalom:Árpádian Age site with a church and cemetery. Interestingly, asettlement was not located there. Neither pottery fragments nor spots ofhouses were observed. The mound is continuously endangered anddestroyed by ploughing. 4. Zöld-halom: a double natural ridge, whichcannot be identified as a kurgan. It is a Neolithic tell–settlement andnear to it an Early Copper Age cemetery can be found. 5. Tedej-Templom domb: it is situated on the first ridge along the former courseof the Tisza River, in the direction of Tedej. It is a Late Medievalsettlement site and a Lutheran church, in which a service was held aslate as 1631. 6. Fürj-halom: according to the descriptions it was a triplemound,but today only two mounds can be clearly observed. Among thethree small mounds, one is a kurgan, while the other two are rathernatural sand ridges. The body of the kurgan is intact, it would be worthto study its vegetation in details. Not far from the kurgan, the burials ofthe Gepids were unearthed during rescue excavation projects of the M3Motorway. 7. Fekete-halom: an intact kurgan, its base is beingploughed, but worthwhile for botanical research. Near the kurgan sevenEarly Bronze Age, Nyírság culture inhumation burials were found(these may also point to the emergence of the kurgan burial!), moreoverat the same location a Scythian cemetery was excavated during a rescueexcavation project of the M3 Motorway (Dani 2004). Its soil wasanalysed by the research group of the Szent István University (Barczi 2009).At the same time the detailed outline as well as the reliefmap of the kurgan was drawn on the basis ofapproximately 600 measured GPS points taken by aLEICA SR520 apparatus. (Figure 3.3–6). 13 Moreover, inthis zone geological sampling was accomplished in a gridsystem by a hand operated Pürckhauer soil sampler. 14According to this, the base sediment of the site is poorquality loess-type deposit. The determinant soil type isthe chernozem soil, three variants of which weredetected, namely alkaline, calcareous and meadowchernozem types. The soil formation process point tohumus formation, however, the inappropriate agriculturaltechniques caused the degradation of the structure, andthe alkalization of the upper soil layers.Simultaneously, the temporarily high water levels supportthe appearance of meadow type floristic compositions.The supposed deposit zone of the kurgan was covered byanthropogenic influence; the original conditions can onlybe reconstructed in the north-western part of the mound(Figure 3). Among the most characteristic soil types, theploughed calcareous chernozem soil is degrading; thestructure is fine, crumbly, with a clogged base horizon.Its acidity is neutral, the carbonate content suggest minoralkalization. The humus content is moderate, the colour isdark (10 YR 3/1). 15 In the chernozem B-horizon, between30-70 cm depth, carbonate deposit can be found, whosecolour is light, greyish, and easily decomposes to grains.This stratum is fertile, rich in krotovina, its humus andcarbonate content is satisfactory. The parent material (Chorizon)is loess-like (2.5Y 6/4), slightly crumbled(polygenetic development, infusion loess, or fluvialsediment?), with pedocal veins. The texture is adobe; theconductance in the segment is even (Barczi et al. 2006a;Barczi et al. 2006b; Barczi et al. 2006c).During the field survey, an Early Neolithic site waslocated south from the tumulus, on a ridge, along a oncenatural waterflow (Figure 1.1). Thus, it is probable thatthose scattered Neolithic pottery fragments, which werefound in the layers of the mound, originally belonged tothe deposit of this earlier site, or maybe the extensiveNeolithic site extend to the site of the kurgan. In the A-horizon of the palaeosoil heaped animal bones and somediscoloured patches were identified as settlementfeatures, which were dated to the period of the EarlyNeolithic time by 14 C (Deb-12788, see Table 1,), whichshowed that this cannot be connected to the builders ofthe kurgan (Figure 2.4). 1613 The recording was done by Márton Vona, the geodesic data weresummarized by the Archeodata’98 Bt., whom I feel indebted for theirprofessional contribution.14 The soil analyses were completed by Attila Barczi, I am grateful for his work.15 According to the Munsell Soil Colour Chart.16 Identified archeozoological finds: Bos taurus L.–slightly fragmented rightastragalus of a mature cattle, total length: 83 mm, distal width: 55,3 mm;fragment of a femur diaphyzes; distal fragment of the right tibia. Ovisaries/Capra hircus–sheep/goat left side mandibula fragment with teeth from P3till M3, tooth bed (P2-M3), length: 72 mm–most probably belonged to an agedanimal. See the mature M3 tooth and the overall wornness of the remains! Flatbone and short bone fragments of an unidentified mammal. I would like tothank the help of Erika Gál (AI of HAS) who helped with the classification.73

T. HORVÁTHThe archaeological sondage trench was deepened alongthe central axis down to the B/C transitional soil horizon,in a width of approximately 2-3 m. After cross cutting thekurgan its measured diameter was more than 42 m and itsheight was around 12 m. The documented layers of thecross section was described as follows, starting from thebottom, between 11.60-11.70 m from the western fixpoint “A” of the section wall (Figure 2):- Layer 0: palaeosoil C-horizon: yellow, adobe–like,fresh, moist, strongly calcareous, 5.60-5.10 m.- Layer 1: palaeosoil B/C transitional horizon: mixed incolours, transitional horizon between the parent materialand the chernozem B-horizon. It is characterized by adecreasing presence of humus, adobe-like texture, and anincreasing pedocal (calcareous veins, carbonateprecipitatiobs) content. The pH is neutral–slightlyalkaline. No structural remains were detected. Wet layer,its moistness is considerable, 5.10-5.00 m. 17-Layer 2: palaeosoil B-horizon: yellowish-brownish-grey,mixed with krotovina, transitional chernozem horizon,5.00-4.55 m.; for 14 C date: see Table 1, 5. sample.- Layer 3: palaeosoil A-horizon: dark brown, with sharpcontours, adobe-textured, structured, consists ofcarbonate precipitation, rich in krotovina and roots, 4.55-4.25 m.; for 14 C date: see Table 1, 1. sample.-Layer 4: cultural Layer 1–the earliest deposit layer ofthe kurgan: brownish, rust-dotted, mixed in colours,4.25-3.20 m.- Layer 4/5: the transitional horizon between two layers,the closing strata of the earliest deposit.-Layer 5: Cultural Layer 2–the presumed second depositlayer of the tumulus: modestly mixed withpalaeokrotovina, greyish-yellowish-brown, rust-dotted,with rusty spots, 3.20-2.40 m.-Layer 6: palaeosoil 2–the closing horizon of thesupposed second deposit of the kurgan: 10-15 cm thick,greyish-black, with modest traces of humus, slightlydeveloped palaeosoil A-horizon 2.40-2.30 m.; for 14 Cdate: see Table 1, 2. sample. 18-Layer 7: Cultural Layer 3: the third deposit layer of thekurgan, multicoloured, with yellowish-brownish dots,which are presumably krotovina, 2.30-1.70 m.-Layer 8: strong precipitations in that layer, whichslightly follows the contour of the mound as well as therain fall leaking line, 1.70-1.40 m.- Layer 9: recent soil B-horizon: crumbly-structured,brown adobe-textured, chernozem transitional horizon,rich in krotovina, 1.40-0.40 m.- Layer 10: recent layer: densely interlaced by herb roots,dusty-crumbly structured chernozem A-horizon, 0.40-0m.; for 14 C date: see Table 1, 3. sample.- Layer 11: a depression detected in the western part ofthe mound: clayish, meadow-like, with columnedstructure, sack-sediment, black, 14 C date: see Table 1, 4.sample).- Layer 12: identical with Layer 11, observed in theeastern part of the tumulus.The stratigraphic as well as geomorphologic resultssuggest that the kurgan was built of three individualdeposit layers (Figure 4). The earliest anthropologicallayer (Layer 4, height: 2,5 m; diameter 27 m) was themost solid as well as compressed, which significantlydiffered from later, darker depository levels. This was notonly because it was pressed by the later sediments, butbecause it consisted of different soil types, moreover inthe earliest phase probably more attention was paid to thebuilding of the burial place and as a result the earliest partof the kurgan was more thoroughly made. Theobservations suggested that this primary layer remainedundisturbed, which allowed to infer that the primaryburial of the kurgan can be found in its originalarrangement.According to the stratigraphic position of the followinglayers, this first building level was instantly followed bythe second construction phase (second building phase,Layer 5), which raised the height of the tumulus by 50%,but the ground plan of the mound remained unaltered.This second stratum was made of similar soil as the firstphase, but it cannot be excluded that morphologicaldifferences are the direct evidences of a definitegeochemical boundary, which was formed long after theconstruction. Presently archaeological methods cannotdefine the exact interval, which might have passed duringthe two building phases. However, no natural soilformation was detected between the layers, which wouldindicate that the body of the kurgan was left open for alonger period. 19In the case of the second and the third building phasesLayer 6 is a naturally formed sediment indicating thatthere must have been a break between the constructionphases. Interestingly, in that natural deposit, more potterysherds were collected as stray finds. One of them wasdated to the phase III of the Coţofeni culture (Figure 2.5;5.2). 20 Besides, two additional rough, brushed pot bodyThe 14 C date of the animal remains: 7720 ±80 BP, 6620–6470 cal BC, 2 σ (seeTable 1, 6. sample).17 Supplemented by the results of the excavation in 2009!18 The fact that the stratigraphically later Layer 6 can be dated earlierthan the palaeosoil A-horizon (Layer 3), which was buried underneathcan be explained by the few mineralized organic remains in the soil,because the 14 C dating was accomplished from soil samples (apart fromNeolithic animal bone remains). Consequently, those 14 C data fromhumus cannot be directly used for archaeological dating, they refer tothe age of the soil, not directly to the age of the kurgan’s reconstruction.These should be rather interpreted as approximate data (Molnár 2004),however, they correlate well with the dating of the samples fromarchaeological finds unearthed in 2009 (see Molnár and Svingor in thisvolume for detailed description).19 This presupposition was strengthened by the excavation results in2009, which did not result archaeological features or finds from theperiod between the first and the second building phases.20 Body fragment of a globular pot. Brown and orange-coloured,weathered, tempered with crushed clay (Figure 5.2). The decoration ismade of dense row of Furchenstich-like stab-and-drag pattern: the bellypart is ornamented with a triangle framework under two horizontallines. The horizontal lines are not interrupted by the starting of a lug ora handle. Fragments, ornamented with similar techniques and motifs areknown from Mihályfalva/Boarta (Roman 1976, Pl. 83/3, 15; Pl. 86/5);Herkulesfürdő/Băile Herculane–Peştera–Hoţilor (Roman 1976, Pl. 78/5,Pl. 109/2; Ciugudean 2000, Pl. 95/5); Kisompoly/Poiana Ampoiului–Piatra Corbului (Ciugudean 2000, Pl. 77/1); Meteş–„Piatra Peşterii”(Ciugudean 2000, Pl. 78/1-2, Pl. 79/1); Mezősámsond/Sincai „Cetatea74

Hajdúnánás–Tedej–Lyukas-halom–An interdisciplinary survey of a typical kurgan from the Great Hungarian Plainregion: a case study (The revision of the kurgans from the territory of Hungary)fragments were revealed, 21 which can be definitely datedto the Early Bronze Age (Figure 5.1, 3, 4-5). Theseremains may be used as indicators for the dating of thedeposits of the mound, both preceding and followingLayer 6. It seems that the first and the second buildingphases of the kurgan cannot be dated after phase III of theCoţofen culture, 22 which, according to the relativechronology of the north-east part of the Carpathian Basinmeans the intermediary period between the Late CopperAge and the Early Bronze Age. Concerning absolutechronology, it can be dated between 2930–2660 cal BC,upon the 14 C data from Kisompoly/Poiana Ampoiului-Piatra Corbului (Romania), a phase III Coţofen site. 23According to the Early Bronze Age pottery fragments, thethird building phase can definitely be dated to the EarlyBronze Age. 24 The third construction period (Layers 7-8)was the last, archaeologically detectable building phase,which roughly doubled both the height and the groundplan of the tumulus; the diameter increased withby 16 m,and the height was enlarged by 2.5-3.0 m.Besides, the black, columnal-structured, clay texturedsack object, which encompasses the feet of the kurgan,can be linked to the third depositional period. This featuredoes deepen into the undersoil, thus cannot be interpretedas a later pit (not a fencing ditch or deposit zone usedduring the building). 25Păgânilor” (Ciugudean 2000, Pl. 91/1); Boksánbánya/Bocşa Montană-„Colţan” sites (Ciugudean 2000, Pl. 102/8).21 Body fragment of a pot. Brown, tempered with grog, decorated withsparse brushed motifs (Figure 5.1). Body fragment of a pot withroughened, cylindrical neck. Light, orangeish-brownish, weathered,tempered with grog, its decoration is oblique brushing on a spreadedclay glaze (Figure 5.3).22 The borderland of the Late Baden culture and the Coţofen culture canbe defined around the valley of the River Ér (also known as Érmellék)the Ecsedi marshland in the study area, but, according to the distributionof the archaeological material of the two cultures this did not mean avery sharp dividing line (Figure 12).23 Ciugudean 2000, 53, Sample 5, Pl. 153: 3755-4260 BP, 2920/2870-2312-2074 cal BC (1 σ).24 The relatively late dating of the last phase of the kurgan is not unique.For further data on similarly late date see Jabuka–Tri humke: according tothe stratification of the mound the Baden layer was followed by thesettlement of the Kostolac culture, covered by an Aeneolithic humuslayer, on which a Pit–Grave culture kurgan was ereced (Tasić 1995, 161).Similar stratigraphic arrangement was observed at Mezőcsát-Hörcsögösand Tiszavasvári-Gyepáros, where the kurgans were built upon acemetery of the Baden culture (Kalicz 1999, 119-130). In the case of thesite at Debrecen-Dunahalom pottery fragments from the Baden-Vissperiod were found in the depository layer, which were used as terminuspost quem dating of the kurgan (Ecsedy 1979, 16). This chronology wasalso observed in the case of the excavated kurgans at Perlez/Perlesz-BatkaC, Pašića humka/Pašić-mound (Medović 1987; Tasić 1995, 153) andPadej/Padé-Barnahát (Girić 1982, 102), which was both erected uponBaden settlements. In the depository layer of the mound excavated atBare (near Kragujevac) pottery sherds dated to the Coţofen period werecolleted (Tasić 1995, 73). The Coţofen I. ceramics unearthed from the fillof the kurgan excavated at Bodo in Romania were similarly used as„terminus ante quem” or „terminus post quem” for dating the ochregrave burial (Gumă 1997, 99).25 Its dating can be explained by the quick erodation of Layer 3,however, its structure and colour is completely different in the sack. Thecolumned compactness of the layer can be explained by the presence ofthe deepened road in this zone, and also by the minor effect of the nonsubsoiloriginated, filtering precipitation. However, its radiocarbondating assures that this feature could be connected to the building phaseof the mound. Similar features were described at Sárrétudvari-ŐrhalomConcerning building techniques, the third phase is theleast carefully designed project: multicoloured, withoutstructure, dusty, clogged, but not as condensed as the firstor the second building deposits, and due to its position,this layer was most harshly destroyed. The stratum isextensively cut by modern robbers’ pits (five of them areof significant size) as well as krotovina. The depositedsoil notably differs from the earlier building phases; it isgrey, dotted with yellow spots. The upper stratum (Layer8) is strongly deposited; coloured with greyish-whiteveins, and slightly follows the line of the precipitationleaking-line.Both Layer 9 and Layer 10 are natural formations, theupper deposit of the modern, recent and disturbed soil.Before sampling morphological investigations werecarried out on the cleared section. The carbonate contentwas checked in every 1 cm. Moreover, the visibleconcretions of the carbonates were controlled in every 10cm. Also the visible concretions and other characteristicattributes were described. The palaeosoil buried by theLyukas-halom (palaeosoil 0; palaeosoil 1) suggest similarconditions as today. The palaeosoil is a well-developedchernozem soil, which formed on loess-like parentmaterial (wetland or infusion loess or maybe transferredparent material). The palaeo B-horizon (Layer 2) isextremely rich in krotovina, it contains considerableamount of carbonates, and the palaeo A-horizon (Layer 3)still preserved its highly favourable fine, crumbly texture.The former soil surface was covered with additional soilremoved from its close surroundings. No sign of soilformation was detected on this deposit, which allowsinferring that this layer was not opened on the surface fora long time. At the same time on the surface of Layer 5, amorphologically well definable 10-15 cm thick soil hadformed. The second palaeosoil (Layer 6), is ainadequately developed soil, with slight humus contentand also iron precipitations. The more robust soilformation was prevented and wrapped up by the thirdbuilding-phase of the kurgan (Layer 7 and Layer 8). Therecent chernozem soil developed upon this deposit, whichcan further be devided into an upper humus-deposited A-horizon and a lower, lime-deposited, transitional B-horizon (Layer 9 and Layer 10).According to the micromorphological analyses of the soilsamples, the parent material (palaeo C-horizon) containsstrong structural and framework elements, while thepalaeo A-horizon is more porous, loose-structured, andcharacterized by more definite micro-aggregations. Thesamples included significant micro-cristallized calciteprecipitation with sparite larger than 5 μm. Comparingthe two samples it can be deduced that in the case of thesample from Level-C the carbonate was found in the soilmatrix and also along the cavities, in the case of thepalaeosoil the carbonate was concentrated in the cavities.Beside the carbonate, in the thin section of the parentmaterial needle-like precipitation forms appear, where the(Dani and Nepper 2006, Figure 2, 3) and Kunhegyes-Nagyállás sites(Csányi and Tárnoki 1995, 35, Fig 2).75

HORVÁTH, T. T.needles are positioned in an angle rather than parallel.Among the organic substance in C-horizon, severalmolluscs were observed, while in the palaeosoil botanicalremains characterized the polished sections. The samplesalso included iron and manganese-concretions as well asprecipitations.The first deposit (Layer 4) is a clearly mixed layer. Thespeciality of the polished sample is that also a fine platestructure is apparent. This formation can be the result ofthe leachment of the clay, or the varying freezeconditions (Gerasimova et al. 1996). Since in this case notrace for the shift of clay or the formation of clay can bepresumed, a freeze can be defined as the main cause forthis particular structure. Among organic materials,charcoal and other botanical remains were detected.Concerning minerals, mica and quartz were described(Barczi et al. 2006c). 26At last, the micro-analytical and geostatistical results(XRF, Rock-Eval, salt-content, factor-, cluster- anddiscriminant analyses) allow us to conclude that major rearrangementtook place in the sediment of the Lyukashalomsince it has been built, consequently secondarymineral depositions began. Due to the mobilisation of theelements the originally heterogeneous geochemicalprofile was followed up by homogeneous zones, dividedby geochemical bordering surfaces. The pattern of theindividual zones is characterized by continuoustransformation, and on the border surfaces there is asudden change. This model points to the fact that as aconsequence of those diffusion processes responsible forthe shifting of the elements, the mound had never got tosteady state condition. In the case of the Lyukas-halomsix geochemical border zones were defined along thesection. Synthesizing the results of the geologicalanalyses, all these border surfaces can be further studied(Barczi et al. 2009, for detailed description see Csanádiand M. Tóth in this volume).The lower base of the recent soil’s B-horizon wasdetected in the depth of 140 cm, which is followed by aredox zone at 180 cm (the lower border of the depositorylayer during the third building phase), which can beconnected to the second stratum of the palaeo A-horizonat a depth of 230 cm (the re-inflating effect of thepalaeosoil). The second redox border surface wasdetected in the depth of 320 cm (boundary between thefirst and the second depository layers), which can beconnected to the swelling soil rich in clayminerals,distinguished at a depth between 380 to 420 cm. From420 cm the once trampled surface was identified aspalaeosoil A-horizon. This stratum is replaced by B-horizon from 460 cm, whose geochemical characteristicsresemble the parent material. The mound was built in twophases, and between the building activities both erosionand soil deposition took place on the second trampledsurface. The first phase (first and second depository26 The micromorphological analyses was carried out by Tamás Bucsi.Here I would like to express my gratitude for allowing me to use hisresults (see Bucsi in this volume for detailed description).layers 4-5) can be divided into two parts by ageochemical border surface, and bear a resemblance tothe palaeosoil, hence it was built of the upper soilcontaining humus. The second sedimentary stratum (thirddepository–layer 7) was build up of soils from thesurroundings of the mound too, as the continuation of theformerly affected surface, also reaching B-horizon and C-horizon strata. Above the two palaeosoils two redoxzones were indicated (layers 6, 8), in which thetransformation of silicate minerals, and also thereorganization of the elements led to the formation ofinner “salt-cores” as well as “alkali zones”. Similartendencies were observed for example in the case of theCsípő-halom (Barczi 2009). The inner transformation ofthe Lyukas-halom can be explained by a similar model as itwas described at the Csípő-halom, however, due to the twobuilding phases, the evolution of the Lyukas-halom seems abit more complicated (Barczi 2004; Joó et al. 2007).Concerning the reconstruction of the former environmentof the kurgan, the biomorphic analyses played crucialrole, since the preservation of the pollens as well ascharcoal was low among the similar ecologicalcircumstances (elevation, relatively dry habitat), and themalacological results did not prove satisfyingconsequences for this paper. Still, the micromorphologicaland pollen-analytical results complement,and in more cases overlap each other, thus, these data areappropriate to draw consequences on the flora of the siteof the mound, as well as the botanical character of thevarious built levels of the kurgan. 27 The palaeoecologicalcircumstances can be most clearly reconstructed from thephytolith and pollen samples that were collected from thecross section of the mound (Barczi et al. 2009). Theloess-like parent material might have developed from thedust that had fallen on a temporary wetland environment.This progress had only been partly, superficiallyinfluenced by the depository activity of the rivers.The loess-based subsoil might have formed from themixture of dust falling onto a temporarily water-coveredlandscape, which was superficially influenced by thepost-genetic depository actions of the rivers during theirdevelopment, while the parent material was moreseriously affected by the periodical presence of slowwater (palaeo C-horizon). The most interesting part of thebiomorphic analyses was the investigation of thepalaeosoil A-horizon, due to the frequent appearance ofphytoliths, which strengthened the presuppositions thatthe horizontal sampling level is identical with the formerwalking level, and the weak degradation of the formerupper soil cannot be precluded (the traces of tramplingand/or erosion was more robustly marked by themicromorphological analyses).At last, the ecological setting was reconstructed as a woodlandsteppe environment, which had strong biomass productivity,27 Pollen analysis was carried out by Linda S. Cummings, leader of themalacological investigation was Pál Sümegi, while the phytolithresearch was headed by Ákos Pető (see Pető and Cummings; Sümegiand Szilágyi later in this volume).76

Hajdúnánás–Tedej–Lyukas-halom–An interdisciplinary survey of a typical kurgan from the Great Hungarian Plainregion: a case study (The revision of the kurgans from the territory of Hungary)thriving floristic associations, and deciduous species grew insmaller clusters, but the overall image of the landscape wasdominated by various grassy vegetations. The mosaic patternof the phytoliths, and the differences observed in their qualityin the palaeosoil can be explained by changes in the climate: amore humid, meadow-like vegetation was transformed into amore dry steppean-like meadow with xerophil grasses (or thevegetation had a cyclical transformation scheme as the floodsarrived). The first as well as the second depository layers ofthe mound contained hardly any phytoliths, suggesting anaccordance with other types of researches, according which itwas kept uncovered for a relatively short period, and it wasconstructed from the upper horizons of the surroundingterritory rich in humus. The sample from Layer 6 between thesecond and the third depository levels resulted a sample rich inphytoliths again: this indicates a rich floristic environment.The large size of the longcell phytoliths proposes a plantationof raw soil surface and the appearance of a tree-detritus marksthe settlement of ligneous plants on the surface of the kurganmound. These results shows a naturally developed soilstructure above the grave.The Excavation Campaign in 2009The second phase of the archaeological research took placebetween 6-14 July 2009. 28 This survey had focused on thearchaeological features connectable to the kurgan itself, theprimarily aim was to uncover the burials. 29 Accordingly,north from our previous sondage, excavated in 2004, butfollowing the same line, a 4 m wide zone was opened forresearch in the central part of the mound, with amultipurpose machine. 30At the bottom of the third depository layer (Layer 7-8),without any observable feature of contamination in the layer,the first archaeological feature was found (Feature 1), whichwas identified as the presumable place of a former burial(Figure 3.1; Figure 7.5; Figure 8.2-4). This feature coincidedwith the bottom layer of the modern robber pit No. 4,starting from the surface of the kurgan. In the relative depthof -260 cm from the geodetic base point, at the bottom ofLayer 7, west-east (or east-west?) oriented 31 remains of awhite carpet (silicified remain of decomposed grassyvegetation) were unearthed. The object was found as asomewhat hollow, 3-5 cm thick feature, woven from organicplant material, which had become compact ashy layerbecause of self-combustion. Its soft surface was cut bykrotovina, and the cross section was documented in thenorth-eastern section wall.The white organic material’s 14 C date is 4270 ±40 BP, 3010-2850 cal BC, 1σ (see Table 2). The southern side of this28 Excavation permits: KÖH 480/1134/2009. The second campaign wasfounded by the NKA A-1002–N-5487 project, the OTKA F-67577 andthe OTKA PD-73490 projects, and the research was also supported bythe Local Council of Hajdúnánás.29 More burials were expected to be found due to the described situationwith the various depository layers.30 The mechanical work was provided by the Nóra’97 Kft and the ColasZrt. Here I would like to express my gratitude for their work, especiallythe help of Zoltán Tóth, and the assistance of the drivers, Antal Ádám,József Juhász and Tibor Tóth!31Because of the fragmented nature of the skeleton the preciseorientation cannot be clarified.object was closed by a 10 cm wide feature, probably madeof wood. Approximately 60 cm long piece of the whitecarpet survived, while other parts were destroyed by therobber pit No 4 and the machine operated work. The soilwas mixed and light coloured around Feature No. 1. Ahuman patella found during the work proposes that thismight have been the site of a human burial originally, whichwas completely destroyed or robbed. Its stratigraphicposition suggests that it might have been the basic burial ofthe third depository period of the kurgan, described byLayers 7 and 8. Due to the fact that the modern robber pitcut the presumed burial, it cannot be clearly affirmed howthe builders of this third mound constructed the burial place(1/ after raising the height of the kurgan the grave was duginto this raised surface, in the centre, in a way that thecontours of a modern robber trench are more or lessoverlapped it; 2/ the burial was placed on the top of theearlier mound, and the third depository layer was piled upafterwards).After Feature No. 1 was documented, during the course of thework it was noticed that along the natural surface borders ofthe mound (on top of Layer 6; between Layers 4 and 5; andalso on the surface of the palaeo A-horizon in Layer 3), a veryfine, thin, deposited layer can be traced, identified as theremnant of the former natural vegetation. In this year, alsosurveying the layers well bellow the excavated features in2004, it was possible to describe the full genetics of the palaeosoils (A-, B-, B/C-, C-horizons), and also the aforementionedwhite layer on the top of the palaeo A-horizon (Figure 8.5-6).From its deposit a fragment of a grey, finely polished evertedrim of a pot was collected, decorated by scratches bellow therim, also containing the traces of some organic material(Figure 5.4-5).At last, in the geometrical centre of the kurgan, the spot of thebase-burial of the first (and second?) building period wasdiscovered, which was dug into the palaeo A-horizon, directlyunder Feature 1, and it was oriented similarly to Feature 1.Unfortunately, by 2009 this burial was severely disturbed: theintensive fox burrow which was observed in 2004 expandedintensively in vertical directions, and the new openings alsoreached the first as well as the second building levels of thekurgan. The first indication for the presence of a burial was ahuman femur found in the palaeo A-horizon, in the foxburrow (Figure 7.1-2). During the disintegration of the featurethe presence of the fox burrow revealed that the eastern part ofthe grave is probably incomplete, and the additional parts areseverely disturbed as well (Figure 7.3-4). 32 These impressionswere proved during the excavation, since at the upper, westernpart of the burial the fox burrow was splitted in two directions,thus, the shoulder-skull zone of the skeleton was totallydestroyed. As a whole, the grave was largely disturbed, at thesame time, this area was covered by one meter thick depositof fresh animal bones and straw, nest by the animals, whichlayer partly protected the archaeological remains (Figure 6).32 Thus, the cross-section of Feature No. 2 does not reflect the originalstratification of the burial’s filling because due to the construction of thegrave chamber and the rite, the chamber was originally empty.77

T. HORVÁTHDescription of Feature No. 2–Grave No. 1Orientation: south-west 240°– north-east 70°.The grave pit was 140 cm wide, 200 cm long. During theexcavation the line of the pit was perceptible: the gravewas dug into a homogenous, moderately coffee-brownsoil. The grave form was rectangular in the upper part,with slightly rounded corners. The burial pit wasrelatively large; the depth was approximately one meter.The surface of the grave in the palaeosoil A-horizon(natural soil level) is covered by a grass carpet, whosegrain orientation was north-south. Under this layer, thin,white, deposited features were uncovered in variouslevels at right angles to the previous level in the northernand southern line of the burial pit, which wereprovisionally identified as silicified remains of grassspecies. Thus, they might have served as the log-line ofthe grave pit. The various levels of these features possiblydenotes that the covering as well as the lining part of thisstructure collapsed from the weight of the deposited soil,or because of the foxes’ activity (or both). At the head,the intact remains of a painted, thin (> 5 mm) blanketwere found, made of organic animal-originated materialup to the line of the burrowing. This layer was decoratedby four cm wide red and black perpendicular stripes, atplaces with narrower white stripes–but this last featuremight have belonged to the material of the blanket(Figure 6.3; Figure 9.3-5). 33The body was lying on the palaeosoil, on C-horizon(Layer 0), on the undisturbed yellow subsoil. The blanket(animal leather, fur, hide) was put onto this level,decorated with painted motifs, from the head, roughly tothe line of the shoulders, bellow that it appeared as abrownish-black, glittering feature (remain of tanningtar?). 34 At the left side of the hip, it also showed a whitecolour this, however, similarly to the upper parts was notpainting but the original, decayed material of the cover.The sides of this blanket were turned up along the lines ofthe grave pit (it was especially observed on the westernand the northern sides), up to 30 cm height. Moreover, itwas documented that the deceased was covered into thatblanket (for example around the femur). The body of thedead along the arms and in the line of the hip was dustedwith ochre (Figure 6.2; Figure 9.3-4). The reconstructedposition of the body was supine, and stretched out. The33 Maybe the blanket was only decorated up to this zone, and thedocumented situation is the intact form. In the case of theBalmazújváros–Kettőshalom kurgan burial – exceptionally resemblingthe Lyukas-halom – Gazdapusztai (1964) also documented the stripe ofthe blanket but only until the shoulder part (Figure 11), even though theburial was undisturbed. It can also be considered that the colourornamentation (see details in the section on the burial rites) on the skullis a result of the blanket with red and black stripes, which is folded backon the body. Similar features were documented by Morgunova (2004,65-67) in the kurgan excavated at Bolgyirevo. Painted blankets werediscovered in the eastern steppe territories in Pit–Grave burials,however, in the Novotitarovszkaja culture in the Kuban region theseblankets covered not the bodies, but they were deposited in the grave asthe covers of the wagons, which accompanied the burials (Gei 2000,Abb. 33; Anthony 2007, 313, Figure 13.4).34 Birch-bark (birch-bark tar?) was mentioned in the case of the primaryburial at Nagyhegyes-Elep-Mikelapos kurgan (Ecsedy 1979, 18, Figure4).arms were along the body, positioned on the pelvis. Thehip bones were severely destroyed, only one part of theright side was found (maybe the body/right leg turned tothis side?).According to the position of the remained left femur, thelegs were flexed. The left heel bone was also uncovered.The upper vertebrae and ribs, as well as the claviculawere also detected, but in “sawdust”-like print. 35 Inrelation to the anthropological definition, in Feature No.2–Grave No. 1 a Cro-magnon type, adult, 23-39 years oldrobust man was buried. 36 The 14 C date for the humanbone was 4210 ± 35 BP, 2820-2670 cal BC, 1σ (seeTable 2).The bottom of the burial pit was rectangular, smooth, atthe edges, at a breadth of roughly 5-10 cm strongly andsharply adjoining to the edges of the grave pit. Thischaracteristic was defined by the Hungarian scholarlyliterature as a piedestal (“posztamens” in Hungarian) andJósa (1897, 321), Zoltai (1938), Gazdapusztai (1964,1965), and after them Ecsedy (1979) also described thisphenomenon. 37Yet, it is not likely that this structure is the remain of aplatform, onto which the deceased was placed, and whichwas plastered to the bottom of the grave pit, since notrace or such construction was uncovered. This layer wasthe top of the palaeo C-horizon, a natural soil stratum,which was most probably levelled and smoothed by thebuilders for the dead. Presumably, it is the imprint of thatsunken fixing framework made of decayed organicmaterial, which once served as the lining of the burialchamber. 38 Thus, the roughly 5 cm, sharply breaking nowempty part between the bottom of the burial and thelower wall of the grave pit denotes the former width of35 The bad condition of skeletal remains is not unusual among kurganburials. This is distinctive especially in such cases where the remains ofcoloured blankets were discovered. In several cases there were no tracesof disturbance and the decay of bones was not the consequence of theimmense weight of the burial mound, since the chambers were usuallywell built constructions. Though, it is possible that soil filtered to thechamber but this could not significantly influence the condition of thebones. The decay of the bones is rather the effect of the richly paintedblankets, because the organic paints contained considerable amount oftanning material and tar. The body was wrapped into this material, thusthe aggressive chemical agents extracted the collagen content of thebones during the centuries. In the case of Ohat-Dunahalom, Debrecen-Basahalom, Sárrétudvari-Balázshalom, Hortobágy-Halászlaponyagkurgans the archaeological and the anthropological data correlates: seeEcsedy 1979; Marcsik 1979. Here I would like to thank the informationand all the help of Zsuzsanna K. Zoffmann!36The anthropological material was described by Zsuzsanna K.Zoffmann. The measured height of the body is roughly 176 cm (see K.Zoffmann in this volume for detailed description).37 István Ecsedy surveyed and documented 21 graves in his workpublished in 1979, but the majority of these burials were from theexcavation materials of Gyula Gazdapusztai.38 The chamber grave construction as well as its building material is amystery. Since even traces of the former grass-vegetation was observed,there is no explanation what kind of material filled in the sides of thechambers without any noticeable remains. It was surely not wood, sincewooden remains are often documented in the region, for example atBalmazújváros-Kárhozotthalom (Csalog 1954), Debrecen-Basahalom(Zoltai 1914, 86), and numerous additional kurgans at Kétegyháza(Ecsedy 1979, 21-24).78

T. HORVÁTHVölgyes–Árkus, 49 and also the Pap–ere) and the TócóRiver near present day Debrecen 50 is the most importantconcentration line of the Baden sites as well as the kurganburials of this period. The spring areas of the Hortobágyand the Kadarcs streams is the Hajdúhát region, thesewatercourses developed in this area topermanent/temporary rivers from the local streams suchas the Utas, Fürj, Vidi or Brassó. Consequently, there is ahydrologically closed, but interconnected system of riversin the north-eastern part of the Great Hungarian Plain,which might have served as an ideal orientation structurefor mobile prehistoric population of herdsmen. Besides, itdefines those areas (direction of camp sites, wintercamps, summer camps or yearly change of camps), whichwere exploited by large scale animal husbandry invarious parts of the year. This line, goes from the easternareas to western direction from the South to the North isthe axis of the Körös–Berettyó–Hortobágy Rivers,especially those smaller watercourses, streams, alongwhich their sites were identified (including Late CopperAge Baden and Coţofen sites, moreover, the legacy of thepopulation of the Kurgan culture originated in the east).The area defined by the kurgans can be separated intotwo major types of hydrological zones, namely drymeadows around temporary or permanent bodies of waterand marshy-wetland areas.The stock breeder population of the above mentionedCopper Age cultures variously adopted the specialecological endowments of their environment. The largescale animal husbandry required that the communitiesfollowed the herds from one temporary camp site to theother, quite resembling the farming techniques of themedieval–early modern societies of the region. AttilaPaládi-Kovács claimed that pasturing in wetlands andwinter grazing at the feets of the Munţii Apuseni inTransylvania was especially important in droughtstrickenyears (Paládi-Kovács 2004, 81).49 Völgyes is mentioned as a fishing place in the written sources of theÁrpádian period and it is identical with the Fejér Lake mentioned bysources from the Anjou period. Its length is 5,8 km, it was nourished bythe Tisza River from the area of recent Tiszacsege through theTőgy/Tölgyér stream, and from Ohat, through the Szántás-fok and theNagy-Morotva. It was bordered by an oak forest from the north calledtoday as Ohat Forest. East and south from the Völgyes Rivulet severalkurgans were identified and also some Neolithic as well as Classic,Viss-type Baden settlement sites.The Árkus is an artificial canal going through the Hortobágy regionfrom south-eastern direction. It is partly an ancient natural riverbed. Itsprings from the Völgyes fishing lake between Ohat and Csege, andflows into the Hortobágy River at the triple border of recent Zám–Nádudvar–Angyalháza. Its artificial valley was constructed in 1716,while its natural bed is 15.99 km long. Numerous kurgans andprehistoric settlement traces are located along its shores. In the medievalperiod, up to the Tartar Invasion in 1241-1242 its abundant water outputwas utilized by the neighbouring settlements (1241-1242: the beginningof a major desertion process in the Hortobágy region) of Árkusd,Derzsegyháza, Csécs, Zám-monostora and Szabolcs (Zoltai 1935).50 The two, deep, uniting branches originates from the Zelemér area inrecent Hajdúböszörmény, merges with the Kondoros rivulet at recentMikepércs, where it is called Tekeres. Farther of recent Hajdúszovát ittakes up the water from the Ondód, the Szepes, the Vérvölgye, theZsongvölgye, and the Agodvölgye waters, from this point it is calledKösély/Kösi. Along the Tócó-Kösi, from recent Józsa-Szentgyörgy toSáránd, and from Szováti to Nádudvar several mounds and prehistoricsites were spotted in its valley. See Zoltai 1928, 1935, 1938.It is a widely accepted view that the expansion zone ofthe kurgans and kurgan fields, lacking permanentsettlements, after all indicates the occupation area of thisprehistoric population. Moreover, considering periodicitythey can further be divided into seasonal winter andsummer camp sites (Anthony 2007, 227). 51The summer camps are most typically located on higherelevations or interfluve plains (it is also named as deepsteppe),while the burial sites connected to winter campsare usually located in river valleys and wetland areas(such as the Pripjaty marshland in the catchment area ofthe Dnieper River, the Meotis marsh in the Pontus regionand Dobruja/Dobrogea, Danube Delta).All those changes, which started the migration of thenomad stock breeders from the eastern steppes had begunaround 4200-4100 BC, presumably as an effect of theclimatic deterioration called Piora-oscillation. Thepalinological samples from the Alpine glaciers reveal thatthe winters became more and more cold, the measure ofsunshine decreased. It is presumed that this process led tothe disappearance of the great tell cultures such as theKaranovo–Gumelniţa–Salcuţa–Tisza/Tiszapolgár cultureby 3800 BC. 52 German oak remains indicate that thedecline of weather only started in Europe from 3760 BC.The first mobile population groups appeared in thisperiod along the Lower Don (the Suvorovo–Novodanilovka type or complex = the elite chieftainburials of the Sredni Stog culture; Early Sredni Stogculture = Skelya culture), 53 which gradually moved51 The analyses of the pollen, phytolith, and other biomorphic partsaround the head and the belly zone of the dead; the investigation of theanimal sacrifice feast; the definition of the contents of the grave goods;the analyses of the burial blanket of the deceased, and other methods areusually used to define the season of the burial. For example in Kalmykiathe winter camps of the Pit–Grave culture and the Catacomb culture wasidentified. One of the groups along the Zunda-Tolga Rivers are mostprobably stayed there in autumn and early spring, while the Pit–Gravegroup moved along the Volga River and the Ural group moved alongthe Belaja and Ural Rivers. The distance of an average yearlytranshumance is around 50-100 km, expectedly in southern direction. Aflock of 500-600 sheeps goes 10-20 km daily around the availablewaters (river, well) (Shishlina 2000).52 Still, the sites in west Bulgaria and smaller sites in Romania survivedthis catastrophe (Krivodol-Salcuţa-Bubanj Ib, Telish III, GalatinHorizon with several cave sites, as the attributes of transhumantpastoralism). At the same time, the first cultures resembling steppeaninfluences appeared in the Lower Danube region (such as the CernavodăI). At various sites extensive destruction layers (soil erosion or the traceof a wartime period?), mass graves illustrate the violent character of thismeetings (the tell-settlements of Yunatsite, Karanovo, Gumelniţa)(Anthony 2007, 229). The same dating is indicated by Grave No. 12 atMarosdécse (Romania, KIA-368: 5380 ±40 cal BP, 4237 cal BC, 1 σ),and the 14 C date of grave from Cainari (Moldova, IA-369: 5580 ±50 calBP, 4451-4369 cal BC, 1 σ) (Govedarica 2004, 71, 80-81).53 The burial sites of this first steppean wave were detected at Csongrád-Kettőshalom (Ecsedy 1979, 11-13), Deçea Mureşului/ Marosdécse(Kovács 1944), Meşcreac/Meggykerék, Feldiora/Földvár, Vinţu desJos/Alvinc, Şard/Sárd burials (Govedarica 2004). Some scholarsconnect this invasion, which according to theTiszapolgár/Bodrogkeresztúr type finds of the Marosdécse graveyardtook place in the Early as well as in the Middle Copper Age (using theterms of the Hungarian terminology). In this period hidden treasurehoards and Hencida-type golden plates were found at Karbuna,Hăbăseşti, Ariuşd/ Erősd (Ecsedy 1979, 13; Anthony 2007). The earliestOchre Grave horizontal and kurgan burials represent a relatively broadchronological horizon together with Late Sredni Stog, which is denotedas being contemporary with the late phase of Praecucuteni III-A4 -A/B–80

T. HORVÁTHLifestyleThe lifestyle of the steppean populations, which arrivedduring the Copper Age and the Bronze Age to theterritory of the Great Hungarian Plain has not changed alot during their migration. 59 Actually, it can be describedas the perfect unintentional or conscious match ofhumans and landscape, since the settlement here definedthe mobile lifestyle connected to large scale herding,which was continuously present in the history of theterritories east of the Tisza River from the Copper Age,however, the populations changed during the millennia(see the occupation of the Great Hungarian Plain by“classic nomadic populations” such as the Scythians,Sarmatians, Huns, Avars, Hungarians, Pechenegs, Jászokand Cumans). The Tiszántúl region is the easternmosthomeland of these pasturing communities, usuallyorganized on a hierarchic, patrilinear basis is, more westof this area this system never became that constant: thequality of the fields rather encouraged farming.The Hungarian prehistoric research indicated an increasein animal husbandry (primarily cattle herding) from theend of the Middle Copper Age, and the reduction offarming. The transformation in the proportions ofagricultural branches cannot only be interpreted as thedevelopment of new cultures, but also as the adjustmentto changing climatic circumstances during the Balaton-Lasinja, the Baden and the Makó cultures (M. Virág2004; Horváth 2006). At the same time, in spite of theseemingly analogous lifestyle, there are well detectabledifferences concerning the characteristics of the variouspopulations living side by side, such as the Baden cultureand the Makó culture (but for example the Coţofenculture could be mentioned here too, see Ciugudean2000). While one of them became the focus of thescholarly investigations because of its burials, and nosettlements or local ceramic wares are known, the twoother cultures show small, probably seasonal farmsteadlikesites and extended settlements with significantceramic finds, which imply a considerable ceramicproduction. 60In order to survey these different tendencies of the twostock breeding cultures, it is worth to define newterminology for nomadism/pastoralism or stock breeding.59 See Morgunova 2000, 2004, 62-68. The excavated and reconstructedPit–Grave grave from Bolgyirevo (Taslinskiy District, Pre-Ural) isalmost identical to the kurgan burials in the Great Hungarian Plain,among them with the kurgan at Tedej. The great mound at Bolgyirevo ispart of the burial field on the left shore of the River consisting of tenkurgans. This outstanding mound is 6 m high and its diameter is 64 m.Moreover, it was surrounded by a 16 m wide ditch. Only one grave wasdiscovered in the mound. The grave pit was lined with carpets. Therewas a roughly 40 years old male in the grave, generously sprinkled withochre. A copper knife, a socketed spearhead, two awls, a chisel made ofmeteorite iron, and three additional unidentifiable objects weredeposited in the grave. In the centre of the pit a carbonate cup was puton an iron disc filled with iron ore and a quartz scraper – very odd findsin a Pit–Grave burial!60 The Baden culture is defined by restrained farming and mobilewetland nomadism with small ruminants, with the extremely stressedritual presence of the two most popular species, namely the cattle andsheep (Horváth 2006, 2008).It is even debated, whether many inventions such as horsebreeding, high quality riding, chariot riding, warfare, theformation of the hierarchic military elite were in facttransmitted by populations defined as steppean Proto-Indo-European groups during the Copper Age to thecommunities of contemporary Central Europe. 61Although horse bones are known from several sites(Molyukhov Bugor, Botai: but these are not older than3600 cal BC, see Levine 1999, 39), the proportion ofhorse bone material is not strikingly high, and it is noteven ascertained whether these are the remains ofdomesticated animals, especially in the earlier periods(presumably horses were hunted for their meat in thebeginning). Why was horse keeping so important? Here Iwould like to quote only one example for this:ethnographic and anthropological observations provedthat one man accompanied by a dog can safely control aflock of 200 sheep, while 500 animals can be securelyguarded when riding a horse (Anthony 2007, 222). Theimportance of horse can best be shown concerning thewinter period: while a sheep can cut 10-12 cm of snow byits hoof, a horse is capable of scrape out 30-40 cm, whichis significant from the aspect of both feeding andpasturing of the animals, the two baselines of survivingwinters (Shishlina 2000, 188). 62The domestication of the horse began in the LateEneolithic Period, but came to a sudden stop in the EarlyBronze Age: no traces of horses were found in thearchaeological material of the Pit–Grave culture, and nohorse bones were unearthed connected to the kurgans orother burials of this period. Even the place and date of thedomestication is still questioned. The earliest visibleremains on horse bones (presence/usage of the saddle orthe bit), which demonstrates that the animals were usedfor warfare practices can only be dated from the LateBronze Age Timber–Grave and Sintashta cultures in theterritory of the steppe (1600-850 cal BC, Levine 1999;Anthony 2007). All those objects, which were formerlydefined as bits or cheek pieces are recently identified aspectoral jewels, and the “horse-headed” sceptres candepict various other mammals too (Levine 1999, 10-12).Beside the denial of the primary importance of horsebreeding in the earlier periods, the significance of smallerruminants and cattle increased. Thus, the theories of“secondary products revolution” and the “secondaryexploitation of animals” by Andrew Sherratt associatedwith the production of fermented drinks, the expansion ofsheep providing sufficient wool for spinning andweaving, the spreading out of draught animals61 The Sredni Stog culture, which existed for more than one thousandyears, had only one site, where notable horse breeding was observed,namely at Dereivka. This was the initial point of this hypothesis but itturned out that the layer, which produced abundant horse bones could bedated to the Scythian period. The Sredni Stog culture has considerablybeen revised in the recent years through the survey of Rassamakin(Levine 1999; Rassamakin 2004).62 The ethnographic research of Masanov (2000) in Kazahstan provedthat this area was the primary centre for horse-domestication andbreeding, while from the south-western territories the usage of thecamel spred.82

Hajdúnánás–Tedej–Lyukas-halom–An interdisciplinary survey of a typical kurgan from the Great Hungarian Plainregion: a case study (The revision of the kurgans from the territory of Hungary)(ploughing, wagon) 63 between 4500-3500 cal BC canapparently be maintained. 64 The colder and drier climatefrom 3300-3100 cal BC led to the development of thePit–Grave culture in the Steppe parallel with thevanishing of the long-lived Tripolye sites (around3400/3330 cal BC). At the change between C1/C2 phasesthe Tripolye culture abandon the region south of the Bug,thus all those enormous Tripolye “towns” such asTal’yanki (estimated ground space 450 hectares) or thesites at Dobrovodi and Maidanets’ke (estimated groundspace 250 hectares), which were even larger than thecontemporary city of Uruk (Anthony 2007, 278-281). 65The Early Pit–Grave block can be divided into twosubgroups: at the Lower Don and in the area of southernBug, the western, traditionally cattle breeding populationlived (some settlement features and botanical remainsdenotes that the Pit–Grave culture was influenced bytraditional agricultural civilizations of Eastern Europe).Along the Volga–Ural–Caspian seashore there was theeastern group who was more focused on sheep breedingand lived a more mobile life than their westernneighbours (Anthony 2007, 304, 326). Rassamakindescribes the western Pit–Grave block as a populationfollowing semi-nomadic lifestyle (Rassamakin 1999,154). 66Concerning the groups living in the Great HungarianPlain, Rassamakin (1999, 131) and additional,comparative archaeological and ethnographical studies(Shishlina 2000) consider that two basic schemes of cattlebreeding can be outlined: the so called transhumance orvertical transhumance model, based on the periodicchanges between summer and winter camps; andpasturing in a yearly cycle.At the same time the grinding stone, found bellow thehead of the male burial No. 10 from the seconddepository phase at Sárrétudvari is the only proof thatcereals or cereal products were part of the diet among the63 The earliest finds appear in kurgan burials around 3100 cal BC:wagon burials at Ostani (Kuban area) and in the kurgans of Bal’ki(Lower Dnieper), remains of a wooden wheel at the site near Koldyri inthe Lower Don region. These were imported through the mediation ofthe Maikop-Novosvobodnaja culture to the Pit–Grave culture,presumably originating from Mesopotamia (Rassamakin 1999, 151;Anthony 2007, 312. Gei (2000) collected 257 wagon burials dating fromthe period between 3100 and 2200 cal BC. The latest results proved thatthere are wagon burials in the Pre-Ural region resembling the Kubanregion: near Sumayevo village (Taslinskij district) two kurgan burialswere found, but sadly without more grave deposits (Morgunova et al.2003; Morgunova 2004, 64). In considering the wagon burials atGerasimovka I and at Izobilnoje I there are all in all four wagon burialsin the territory between the Volga and the Ural dated to the first half ofthe third millennium BC, thus it is worth to rethink the theories aboutthe invention and the spreading of the wagon.64 According to Anthony (2007, 137-138) the cattle breeding societies ofthe eastern steppe were characterized by a strong male preference;adaptable, opportunistic leaders; and continuous problems with cattlesteeling, which led to warfare and violence. There is a possibility thatthe protection of cattle herds induced the development of horse keeping(for these see Proto-Indo-European creation myths).65 At Maidanets’ke upon the settlement features a Pit–Grave kurgan wasconstructed. Does this mean the sign of an invasion? The aggressormight have been the Mikhailovka I. or the Late Sredni Stog population(Anthony 2007).66 The various potential models of cattle herding is shown by Table 3.4.Pit–Grave tribes living in the Carpathian Basin: maybethey themselves did a small scale farming, or theyimported cereals from other populations focused onfarming (in this case from the people of the Makó culture,in the form of good exchange or as a tax).Taking into consideration the relative poorness of gravegoods of the steppean cultures in the Carpathian Basin,there are many false suppositions about the considerablepoorness of the eastern newcomers compared toagricultural societies. Unfortunately, the wealth of similarcommunities, the abundance of flocks, the gorgeous furs,woven textiles, carpets, and woodcarvings disappearedduring the centuries, and their prints and remains are farfrom their luxurious appearance that they representedbefore. 67 In the eastern territories, owing to thefavourable soil conditions, more finds of these types werepreserved and the number of identified sites is larger.Bátorá identified 50 metal craftsmen burials from theEneolithic and Early Bronze Age (from Pershin the graveof a 12-13,5 years old boy!). 68 Moreover, 30 smiths’graves, and even 3 or 4 times more graves of mastersdealing with chipping, 3 tanners’burials, in Grave No. 2of a boy at Vinogradnoye kurgan No. 14 a bone, antlerand pearl processing master was identified in hissummary (Bátorá 2000). 69 I have a definite opinion thatthose groups living in the Great Hungarian Plain lived insimilar circumstances to the communities in the easternsteppes and surrounded themselves with the masterpiecesof their own craftsmen. 70Stratification–the building dynamics of the HungariankurgansTwo construction phases were defined in the case ofHajdúnánás–Tedej Lyukas-halom (1+2; 3.) based onarchaeological and geological information, from whichthe first and the second deposits were constructed at thesame time, and the third phase was built some decadeslater. The survey revealed that the mounds wereconstructed of the same type of soil, exploited from aroughly 15000 m 2 area around the kurgan, which graduallylost its humus content, thus changed from A-horizon to B-horizon and then to C-horizon (Figure 3.1). 7167 As a comparison at Balmazújváros-Kárhozott halom wood timbersfrom a burial were found (Csalog 1954); in Grave No. 12 at Gurbăneşticamel hair was identified (Ferenczi 1997, 73).68 Chernykh et al. 2000.69 Among the master graves young males, and in one catacomb grave(Aksay) a roughly 18-20 years old female was excavated, which maydenote the high social status acceptance of craftsmanship. Still, theburials themselves are not outstandingly rich. Thus, it cannot beconcluded that the craftsmen were in a high social status themselves(see Eliade 2004).70 As a comparison, a real masterpiece of wood construction from Berelunder mound No. 11 (Kazakhstan, Early Iron Age) (Samashev andMylnikov 2008).71 The first deposit was built of 657 m 3 soil, in case of the second layer685 m 3 soil was used (+28 m 3 ), and in the third phase of theconstruction 2848 m 3 soil (+ 2163 m 3 ) was used up at Hajdúnánás–Tedej-Lyukas-halom. The so-called depository zones in most caseswere observed supposed that the surroundings of the kurgan was intact(Figure 3.2).83

Hajdúnánás–Tedej–Lyukas-halom–An interdisciplinary survey of a typical kurgan from the Great Hungarian Plainregion: a case study (The revision of the kurgans from the territory of Hungary)relations chronological phases were defined to group thekurgan burials. 86Period IILate Copper Age settlement features in the buriedpalaeosoil A-horizon of the primary burials of thekurgans:- Kétegyháza, kurgan field No. 5: on the level of theburied subsoil, settlement features dating to theCernavodă culture Period III. appear (Ecsedy 27-28, Pl.10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, Figure 21). Thus, the kurgan wasbuilt after that period (see also the characteristic cattledepositioning practice of the Boleráz culture, Ecsedy1979, Pl. 10.5). 87- Ohat–Dunahalom: In a depth of 2,05 m, at the bottom ofa kurgan of 230 cm high, near an oven, a decayed, westeastoriented skeleton was excavated by Zoltai (1924, 11-12). The arms were bent on the pelvis, the legs were in afrog-like position. At the left elbow a pebble was found, 88while on the left and on the right of the skull, and at thelegs ochre lumps were deposited.In the level of the former subsoil, in which the primaryburial was discovered, a Baden culture pit oven wasexcavated, on which the kurgan was buil later. This wasperhaps a smaller part of an extended Viss-type Badensettlement. Since István Ecsedy previously did notdescribe the features or published their profiles, and thefigures were not good quality photos either, here I wouldlike to present its preserved artefacts items by items toavoid any misunderstanding connected to the finds(Prehistoric Collection of the Déri Museum, InventoryNo. IV. 1923. 105.3-7; Ecsedy 1979, 16, Pl. 1.1-8; Pl. 2):- neck and belly fragment of a small-handled jug, with asharply angled profile, light brown, tempered with grog,polished with three horizontal incised lines resemblingthe decoration of amphorae, and on the belly, vertical,sharp channelled decoration combined with stabbedpoints formingg a line appear. Size: 38×47×5 mm. Itshows Classic Baden/Kostolac type ornamentation(Figure 16. 2. = Ecsedy 1979, Pl. 1/2., Pl. 2/6).86The first period is maintained for the burial of Csongrád–Kettőshalom, which can be dated between 4200 and 4100 cal BCaccording to the 14 C dating of Grave No. 12 at Marosdécse.87 According to the published finds I think it belongs to the Bolerázculture, for the argument see Horváth 2009. Neither in the CernavodăIII culture nor in the Boleráz-Baden cultures there are any traces of aportable oven (or curfew) (Ecsedy 1979, Pl. 15.2), however, this artefacttype appears in the Neolithic period (Banner 1929) and in the BronzeAge too (P. Fischl et al. 2001). It can also be supposed that thisbelonged to the kurgan, this artefact is known in the Catacomb culture(see e.g. Ślusarska 2006, 99). In my opinion the horse bones were foundfrom the remains of a site from another period, maybe from a nearbyBronze Age site (Bökönyi 1979). See the details in the previous chapterentitled “Lifestyle”.88 It is a very strange finding because unluckily no information survivedabout it, and the artefact has been lost since then. It can be presumedthat it was a hand axe as part of a mace or a grinding hand stone. In theprevious version it might had immense chronological importance, sincethe so called Mariupol–Borodino type mace heads, which appear in theregions of the Carpathians are already present during the Dnieper-Donets and the Sredni Stog cultures (4500-4000 cal BC) (see Klochko2002; Govedarica 2004, 242, Abb. 58), representing the early, pre-Pit–Grave horizon.- neck and belly fragment of a small beaker or ladle,reddish-brownish, polished, with a high cylindrical neck,the belly part resembles a compressed spherical segment.Size: 36×40×4 mm. Classic Baden (Figure 16. 1. =Ecsedy 1979, Pl. 2/3).- outward slanting rim fragment of a bowl with high,cone-shaped neck, dark grey, tempered with micaceossand and grog, polished, decorated with dotted line on theneck. Size: 73×90×6 mm, diameter: 160 mm. ClassicBaden (Figure 16. 7. = Ecsedy 1979, Pl. 2/5).- Viss-type fragment of a bowl or an amphora with atripartite handle, with outcurving rim, brownish-greyishcoloured, tempered with grog, polished. It is noticeableon the interior broken surface that the high swingingtripartite handle was fitted to the rim. Size.: 60×47×7mm. Classic Baden (Figure 17. 2. = Ecsedy 1979, Pl. 1/7,Pl. 2/2). 89- belly and neck fragment of a bowl, greyish-reddishcoloured, polished, decorated with dotted line on theneck, and on the belly with incised net pattern. Size.:54×40×4 mm. There is one belly side piece belonging tothis object, grey, with red traces of fire, tempered withground mica, polished inside. Size: 94×76×7 mm. ClassicBaden (Figure 17. 1. = Ecsedy 1979, Pl. 1/2, 8–Ecsedydid not recognize that these two pieces belonged to thesame vessel, and maybe 5.; Pl. 2/1, 4; the fragments aredepicted in an erroneous position, upside down on bothplates).- IV. 79.1923. three fragments of a bowl with truncatedbiconical neck and outcurving rim, two of the fragmentsmatche together. Dark grey, with imprints of red flames,the inside is reddish-grey, tempered with calcite gritsmixed with grog, decorated on the neck with a dottedline. Size: 67×56×4, 44×49×4 mm. Classic Baden (Figure16. 5).- IV.79.1923. Two matching pieces of a smaller vesselwith truncated biconical neck and outcurving rim, the rimis decorated with a toothed motif on the outer as well asthe inner surface. Reddish-grey, tempered with calcitegrits mixed with grog, polished. Size: 80×43×4, rimdiameter: 130-150 mm. Classic Baden (Figure 16. 6. =Ecsedy 1979, Pl. 1/6. small dish, with a vertical handle onthe belly? If this is identical to the described object thenthe belly part of the vessel is missing by the time of therevision in 2009).- IV.79.1923. Neck fragment of a bowl, with a dottedline, black, highly polished. Size: 57×38×4 mm.. ClassicBaden (Figure 16. 4).- IV.79.1923. Side fragment of a plate, grey, the insidesurface is tempered with ground mica and grog, decoratedwith a dotted line on the neck, and incised slanting lines89 Since the publication of the monograph of Banner (1956) the sites ofViss-type artefacts were located in Szabolcs–Szatmár–Bereg County,Hajdú–Bihar County, Borsod–Abaúj–Zemplén and partly Pest County(north-east Hungary). These surely not belong to the earlier Bolerázhorizon, but their late dating has not been proved either: they are mostprobably representing an older Classic IIB-III territorial group: Bondár2002, 12. J. Korek (1983, 24-25) argued that the material found atPoroszló–Ráboly constitute a transition between the Boleráz and theViss groups.87

T. HORVÁTHon the belly. Size: 28×34×7 mm. Classic Baden (Figure16. 3).- IV.79.1923. Side fragment of an amphora or a pot, lightgreyish-reddish brown, polished, tempered with groundmica and grog, decorated with incised net pattern. Size:42×38×4 mm. Classic Baden (Figure 17. 3).- IV.79.1923. side fragment of an amphora or a pot, lightgrey, the interior is dark grey, polished, decorated by incisedlines. Size: 24×24×6 mm. Classic Baden (Figure 17. 4).- IV.78.1923. Truncated blade, first generation, cortex onthe obverse, bent, on the reverse side the bulb is knocked,talon is diedre, the mutilation at the distal end is straight.Striped flint from Mezőcsát. Size: 31×21×5 mm. Baden?- IV.78.1923. Saw-toothed sickle insert made of anatypical flint, the blade is weathered. Grey hydroquarzit.Size: 16×26×3 mm Baden?Dunahalom was the first documented archaeologicalexcavation, where a Baden settlement and a kurgan burialwas discovered at the same location. Unfortunately theexcavation did not undertake fine chronologicalobservations: in this case both the contemporaryexistence of the settlement and the building of the kurgancan be hypothetized, or the kurgan was later erected onthe site of the Baden settlement. Not far from theDunahalom (without any specific information on thelocation of the site), at Külső–Ohat (now it is Ohatrailwaystation) Zoltai unearthed the traces of a Badensettlement in the same year (Zoltai 1924, 11-12).According to the few complete pots, which werepreserved by the Déri Museum in Debrecen, this was aClassic Baden settlement also (Inv. No. IV. 1923. 61, 63,65, 67, 68, IV. 1923. 50.69.70; 72.105.7; 106c) (Figure18-19).Another exemple for the meeting of the two cultures isthe sites at Mezőcsát–Hörcsögös and Tiszavasvári–Gyepáros (Kalicz 1999), where a Pit–Grave culturekurgan was constructed upon Classic Baden burials(sadly both kurgans were destroyed). It is notable that atMezőcsát–Hörcsögös an aniconic, anthropomorphic-likestele was discovered (Kalicz 1999, 68, Figure 4-5.)(Figure 20.2). 90- Hortobágy–Halászlaponyag: during the excavation ofthe kurgan, Baden as well as Neolithic pottery fragmentswere found. Ecsedy published the reconstruction drawingof the lost pot only, therefore it is neccessary to describethe material here in details. In his opinion the vessel wasa sacrifice for the kurgan burial, just as the finddiscovered at Dunahalom (Ecsedy 1979, 16, Pl. 1.9). Yet,his view cannot be accepted: the kurgan was most90 For the formal analyses of the steles from Hungary see Horváth 2009.Two steles were discovered at Plačidol II site (Panayotov 1989, Obr. 63,79), similar to the piece known from Mezőcsát–Hörcsögös. Additionalfinds are reported from Bulgaria from the Varna area: two pieces fromthe site Ezerovo II, three pieces from the site Ezerovo III, and anadditional stele is known from Nevša (Tončeva 1981, Figure 152-160).The Gherla/Szamosújvár stele (Orosz 1904) quite resembles the Pianude Jos/Alsópián example. Their analogies are quoted from the Steppes,namely from Natalivka, Pervomaevka and Belogradovka sites(Ciugudean 1982).probably built roughly in the same period as the Badensettlement existed or after the Baden period (DériMuseum, Prehistoric Collection, Inv. No. 119.a.1924).- Large, amphora with a wavy rim, dark grey, the exteriorsurface is roughened, one third of the vessel was found.9-10 cm thick, height is 27 cm, rim diameter is 27 cm,bottom diameter is 12 cm. It was discovered at a depth of140 cm in pieces. According to the Inventory of themuseum it was revisioned in 1967 and also in 1993,while it was not found in 2009 (Figure 21. 6. = Ecsedy1979, Pl. 1/9). Inv. No. 119.b, c, d, g, 120.- Rim fragment of a smaller bowl, light grey, polished,the rim is everted. Size: 41×68×6 mm, rim diameter: 100mm (Figure 21. 1).- Everted rim fragment of a bowl, light brownish yellow,tempered with grog, polished. Size: 70×52×8 mm, rimdiameter: 200 mm (Figure 21. 2).- Polished side fragment with a sharply angled profile(compressed spherical segment shape), dark grey, interioris light brown. Size: 54×40×4 mm (Figure 21. 3).- Side fragment, reddish-grey, weathered, interior is red,polished. Size: 45×47×4 mm (Figure 21. 4).- Everted rim fragment of a pot with a broken remain of aplastered handle or lug, under the rim there is aarticulated rib, reddish-grey, tempered with grog, Thesurface is smoothed. Size: 68×54×10 mm, rim diameter:roughly 200 mm (Figure 21. 5).These ceramics can be classified as Classic Badenpottery; however, their more precise dating cannot bedecided due to their uncharacteristic nature. Moreover,beside these artefacts some atypical Neolithic wares wereinventoried.- Balmazújváros–Kettőshalom: Gazdapusztai noted thatin July 1964, while excavating the kurgan, a small mugwith a handle was found in the level of the buried soiltogether with animal bones (Gazdapusztai 1964; Ecsedy1979, 20). The find got lost. 91At last, it has to be mentioned that in the research area anindividually sited Classic Baden settlement was exploredat Debrecen–Tócóvölgy (Figure 22), in an area, wheremore kurgan mounds are known (excavated kurgans arefor example the László-halom or the Szántay-halom,Zoltai 1938). 92Additional Baden settlement features in the surveyedregion (after Korek 1983; Korek 1985; György 2008;Horváth 2009):- Boleráz settlement traces are reported from Levelek inthe Szabolcs region, along the left shore of the TiszaRiver in the neighbourhood of Tiszaluc, Alattyán,Tiszavalk, Poroszló, Tiszarád, Cserhátszentistván andGyöngyöshalász. Apart from these south of the KörösRiver, in Békés County, for example from the Battonya,Békés, Békéscsaba, Biharugra, Bucsa, Ecsegfalva,91 It could be a small Baden mug or a cheers cup as well. It is asacrificial piece connected to the kurgan, or perhaps an artefact from aformer, deserted settlement.92 Zoltai 1928, Déri Museum, Prehistoric Collection Inv. No. IV.1927.63.1.88

T. HORVÁTHroutes of the M3 and M5 Motorways as well as the mainroads connected to these from the 1990s, the heartland ofthe Great Hungarian Plain namely the Hortobágy region,the Nagykunság as well as the Nagy–Sárrét or theTiszazug areas, were only partially if at all involved insystematic archaeological research (see Raczky et al.1997; Szalontai 2003).The sparse archaeological attention of the last 200 yearsresulted that in the studied kurgan expansion zone exceptfor Békés County and Tiszavasvári, there are no Badensites from the early and Boleráz phases (this wouldsupport the “no man’s land theory” in the Boleráz phasebetween 3600/3400–3100 cal BC, which could have beeninvaded by the Pit–Grave culture). 97 The Classic Badensites characterized by Viss-type ceramics are hardlypresent, but the few appearances are directly connected tokurgan sites regularly near to waterflows, which factorhad a strategic importance for both populations(Mezőcsát–Látóhalom/Hörcsögös; Külső–Ohat Inv. No.IV. 1923. 61, 63, 65, 67, 68; 50.69.70; 72.105.6-7/-Dunahalom, Debrecen–Tócóvölgy Inv. No. IV.1927.63.1./-Szántay, László and Dévaványa Inv. No.IV.1937.3/-Barcé-halom, Templomdomb etc.). 98 Furtheron, this feature can be interpreted as an indicator of socialrelations between the two cultures in the Late CopperAge–Early Classic Baden period (roughly between 3400-3000 cal BC in this region), presumably in the previouslydescribed superior, subordinate or patron–clientframework, explained as a typical feature of the Proto-Indo-European populations. In this system ofrelationships the Pit–Grave culture plays the violentoppressive, or the patron role (see for example Anthony2007, 137-138, 378-379). 99The chronological framework is further complicated bythe internal dating problems of the Baden culture itself: inthe last fifty years there was a widely accepted hypothesisabout the linear and unbroken development of theBoleráz–Baden cultures in the Late Copper Age, whichtheory seems to be contradicted nowadays.Recent excavation data do not support the continuous,peaceful transition and steady progress between the97 The “no man’s land” is located more precisely east from the line ofthe Tisza River, south from Tiszavasvári, and north from the courses ofthe three Körös Rivers, from which territory no Boleráz type finds orsites have been identified (Figure 23, 28). At the same time thesurroundings of recent Tiszavasvári is densely populated in this period,the traces of several cultures were detected (Figure 26).98 The 14 C dates of Baden/Viss settlement of Berettyóújfalu–Nagy-Bócs–dűlő (Poz-31805; Poz-31799) are between 4505 ±35 – 4480 ±40BP, 3360-3090 cal BC, 1 σ.99 After George Dumèzil’s hypothesis on the trifunctional Indoeuropeansociety the young males were shephards the mature males were thewarriors and the old men were the ritual leaders. In (Proto-) Indo-European societies the fraternitas of young men (such as theIndogerman Männerbunde or the Greek Korios) usually marked withsingle or double band on the shoulders marked the stage of initiation(single band: initiation into brotherhood, double band: oath of loyalty tothe leader). These single or double bands are regular decorative motifsof Baden anthropomorphic figures (see Horváth 2010). Taking oaths ondogs or wolfs their being as a totem animals might be symbolized by thecarnivorous animals teeth found in the kurgans (Anthony 2007).Boleráz and the Baden Periods in all the territory ofrecent Hungary. In the central part of the country (in thesurroundings of Budapest up to Pilismarót–Vác) despitethe intensive research, only Late Baden III/IV finds areidentified, but based on the radiocarbon dating fromEcser Site No. 6, this period, typologically categorized aslate–classic, took place in the Boleráz phase between3400-–3000 cal BC 100 !Correspondingly, in all those areas, where the Bolerázphase is missing, and only late III/IV type Baden materialis distinguished (such as in north-east Hungary and thesouthern part of the Great Hungarian Plain, for examplein the Hódmezővásárhely area based on the summary byBanner from 1956 but sadly still lacking 14 C dating), it ispossible that this typologically late materialchronologically represents the early phase, which at othersites (e.g. in Transdanubia Budakalász-Luppacsárda,Balatonőszöd–Temetői dűlő, Nagykanizsa–Billa)grouped to Boleráz or Boleráz–Baden type sites, namelythat in those regions the Classic Baden III/IV material iscontemporaneus with the early Boleráz I.B/C typeassemblages between 3400/3300–3100/3000 cal BC(Figure 27)!The Boleráz/Baden sites east of the Tisza River do notoverlap with the young age of the Transdanubian Badensettlements (2600 cal BC): they ended around 3100 calBC, and can be placed to the Pre-Pit-Grave culture, whichinfiltrated into the territory of the Great Hungarian Plainaround 3400 cal BC, but in the first time they occupiedsuch territories, where the Boleráz/Baden culture neversettled (the so-called „no man’s land”: Nagykunság,Nagy-Sárrét, Hortobágy). Later - thanks to furtherinfiltration from east - they moved from north andoccupied the whole Boleráz/Baden territory, however forthis time these cultures already disappeared from theGreat Hungarian Plain.Baden IIB/III–Viss and Baden III/IV–Ózd/Piliny/Hódmezővásárhely form the Classic Badenculture in East-Hungary, as two entirely or partlyneighbouring and contemporaneous territorial groups.Based of the partly overlap in time and space it can be aconsidered idea to discuss the possibility of anyinteraction between the Pit-Grave and Boleráz/Badencultures, but the explaination of the disappereance ofBoleráz/Baden is probably in in connection with theinfiltration of the Pit–Grave culture.At the same time, this would also mean that the Bolerázand the Baden cultures cannot be portrayed as a cohesivedevelopment process, but rather as two completelyindependent material cultures, which formcontemporaneous, neighbouring cultural zones inparticular parts of the country, while in other regions theyrepresent horizons one after another with temporal gaps(see more details about this problem in Horváth 2009).100 I express my gratitude to Róbert Patay the leader of the excavationand to Peter Stadler for the information.90

Hajdúnánás–Tedej–Lyukas-halom–An interdisciplinary survey of a typical kurgan from the Great Hungarian Plainregion: a case study (The revision of the kurgans from the territory of Hungary)The western and eastern part of the Danube showsdifferent chronological periodicity, which is reflected inthe cultural groups, and this falsifies the former opinionof the uniform development of the Carpathian Basin inthe Late Copper Age. At last, all these hypotheses willnot help, but makes the dating of the kurgans morecomplicated. 101Period IIIIn the succeeding period, in the transitional phasebetween the end of the Late Copper Age and the EarlyBronze Age, beside the population of the Pit–Grave,surviving Baden sites, as well as the Period III of theCoţofen culture can be sketched in the Érmellék region(Hajdúnánás–Tedej–Lyukas-halom). At the same time,sites defined as Post-Baden groups (or various ceramicstyles), such as Kostolac, and additional populationsremarked by distinctive cable pattern vessels (mostprobably not individual cultures, only sporadicallyidentified populations with mixed material culture) arerepresented in the study area (Figure 28). 102 This horizonwas paralleled with the late Kostolac, Vučedol A, and theCoţofen IIIa-b phases (Dani 2001, 130).Period IV / (V?)The beginning, or the first phase of the Bronze Age isrepresented by the spread of the Makó culture in northeastHungary: this culture streches up to the Érmellékregion, but does not step over the line of the Tisza, and itsexpansion zone is bordered in the south by the TemesRiver in the Bánát/Banat region (Dani 2001, 131-132).There are contemporaneous groups living in that zonesuch as the west Transylvanian Livezile–Bedeleu/Bedellőkurgan grave group, the Coţofen IIIc, Vučedol B/(C?),Glina–Schneckenberg A-B groups, and in theDráva/Drava/Drau–Száva/Sava/Save interfluve region theearly Somogyvár–Vinkovci groups (and this processcontinues in the second phase of the Bronze Age, inPeriod V?). According to the Period 2 of the Sárrétudvarikurgan this phase also witnessed by a late wave of thePit–Grave (Dani and Nepper 2006).101 Perhaps the partial geographical and temporal overlapping of theBoleráz and the Baden cultures is responsible for the synchronization ofthe Tripolye-Cucuteni culture and the Boleráz–Baden group marked byvague information on import-based trading connections (see alsoPolgárization/Badenization in the Tripolye-Cucuteni culture in Videiko2000).102 One Kostolac type vessel is known, which was discovered betweenTiszadorogma and Ároktő during a through cutting of an embankment(Dani 2001, 129, I. Table/1), parallel to the Lower Danube theKostolac-Coţofen IIa-b symbiotic sites formed with mixed finds(Roman 1976, 53-55, Figure 8), while in the eastern edge of the GreatHungarian Plain a Late Baden-Coţofen connection is observable(Roman and Németi 1978, 49-53).Supposedly, all those cultures, which are not of steppeanorigin, were formed in the surrounding territories upontheir direct stimulus, but the tradition of burying theirdead into kurgan mounds, but characterised by mixedmaterial as well as cultural legacy. 103All the east Slovakian kurgan burials can be grouped tothis horizon too, in which regularly Baden, cordornamentedand Nyírség type pottery is discovered(Bátora 1983). Moreover all those cord-ornamented strayfinds from the territory of recent Hungary (Dani 2001,132; 2005), and other sites with alike assemblages couldnot be connected to kurgans (Figure 29). 104Steppean type cist graves with cord-ornamented ceramicswere identified in the wider region of the kurgan at Iaşi–Valea Lupului in Grave No. 22, 105 at Bleckendorf/Egeln, 106 and also at Wien–Essling. 107103 The Coţofen III influenced Livezile site (Ciugudean 2000), theslovakian kurgan burials stimulated by Baden–Nyírség–Corded Warecultures (Bátora 1983), the Vučedol (sic!) kurgans (Batajnica, Vojka,Moldova Veche (Tasić 1995)), the Nezsider type mounds havingLate/Classic Vučedol–Early Somogyvár inspirations (Ruttkay 2002,2003) can be listed here, and the somewhat later burial mounds of theSomogyvár-Vinkovci horizon (Gönyü–Hömpölygő/Tetűdomb,Győrszabadhegy, Verbiţa? (Bóna 1965, 40-44)), moreover, the elitekurgan burials of Dalmatia and Montenegro such as Velika Gruda andMala Gruda, Danilo–Tumul Ivankovača, Podgorica–Tološi (Primas1996). The Pit–Grave culture itself changes a lot: the late graves areinspired by the surrounding local Early Bronze Age cultures, and thusthe Makó and Livezile type ceramics are represented in the rich gravedeposits at Sárrétudvari (Dani and Nepper 2006), which were totallymissing from the early Pit–Grave burials! The burial rites of the Pit–Grave might have influenced the habits in the Classic Baden period, onephase earlier (for the appearance of Baden kurgans during period IV;see Kovács 1987).104 Such as for example Buj (Roska 1914, Fig 1, it was discoveredduring the construction works of the railway line between Buj and Baba,Inv. Nr. I. 1196/57.150.1., Nyíregyháza, Jósa András Museum,Prehistoric Collection); the best formal and ornamental parallels ofwhich are from the Central German territory, from Niederkaina(Buchwaldek 1966, Abb. 6, 7), to the vessel discovered in a kurgan ofthe Srednij Stog Culture at Akkermeń (Telegin 1992, Abb. 2.5), and thePit–Grave kurgan at Ploieşti-Triaj in Romania. Other examples areTiszabábolna; Tarnabod (Kalicz 1968, Table III/2; MNM Inv. Nr.45.1943.1; perfect formal and decorative analogy can be found in GraveNo. 1. at kurgan No. 10. at Sofievka (Rassamakin and Nikolova 2008,Pl. 1.3-4); Nagyhalász–Királyhalom (Kalicz 1968, Table I/18); Paszab–Szőlőhomoka (Kalicz 1968, Table XIV/1); Békésszentandrás–Nádashalom(MRT 8, 85-86, Table 19/8). Good analogy is known fromLebedi, kurgan No. 2. (Gei 2000, Ric. 9:24), Tiszabábolna–Szilpuszta,Grave No. 7 (Dani 2005b, Table 2/6). Kalicz mentioned cord-impressedfragments from Hortobágy–Poroshát, Haláp, Téglás and Hencida (seemore details in the catalogue in Dani 2005b). Possibly it would beworthwhile to detect the spreading of the Early Bronze Age assimetrichandledvessels and the intrnally decorated pedestalled bowls in thisenvironment. In Catacomb kurgans this object type is classified asincense burner (see Ślusarska 2006), which was detected by GabriellaKulcsár not only in the Pontic region, but also in the Don–Kuban areaand on the western shores of the Caspian Sea (Roman et al. 1992).105 Ferenczi 1997, 25. However, this find belongs to the GlobularAmphora culture! The closest cist grave of the Globular Amphoraculture was discovered inside the Carpathian Basin atCsíkszentmárton/Sânmartin-Ciuc (Romania) with a decorated bone belthook (Székely 2002). This grave belongs to the Podolia or Szeret/Siretsub-group of the Globular Amphora culture (between 2900-2400 calBC) (Klochko 2003, 399; Szmyt 1999, Figure 3), similar finds areknown from south Bukovina, from Suceava County. It is discussed thatthese communities came into this region after the Cucuteni B2 period,and created the Horodiştea-Erbiceni culture, which during its longdevelopment might have had an influence on the Early Bronze Age andthe formation of Schneckenberg culture (similar cist graves). Their91

T. HORVÁTHAlthough the Corded Ware ceramics in Hungary are notstrictly connected to the primary burials of the kurgans,their appearance is usually linked to the Pit–Grave or theCatacomb horizons (e.g. Kalicz 1968, 43-46; Ecsedy1979, 56). 108 Even if these artefacts are discovered asstray finds in the close surroundings of the kurgans, it canbe supposed that these might have been grave deposits(Figure 29).Absolute ChronologyAustriaAt Neusiedl / Nezsider am See – Kalvarienberg/Einsiedlerberg Kálváriahegy / Remetehegy) in 1943,during the digging of an anti-aircraft defence, a tumulusburial was discovered. The grave was constructed bydepositing extra soil on top of a natural hill series. Theburial was not dug into the soil but the top of a moundwas covered with stones. Beside a mature man a goldenhair ring, a classic set of Zók–Vučedol II/Ig I.–Jevišovice/Mödling–Zöbing–Kosihy/Makó/Čaka vesselsand Somogyvár–Vinkovci influenced pottery wasdeposited. The radiocarbon dates for the locallydeveloped “Facies Neusiedl” grave are:- ETH-25186: 4160 ± 55 cal BP, 2820–2660 cal BC (1 σ).- VERA 2213: 4130 ± 35 cal BP, 2710–2620 cal BC (1 σ)(Stadler 2002). 109HungaryThere are only three excavated kurgan sites in Hungarywith available 14 C dating: Kétegyháza–Török mound,Sárrétudvari–Őrhalom, and Hajdúnánás–Tedej–Lyukashalom.Kétegyháza–Török-halom:- Grave No. 4 in kurgan No. 3: Bln-609, 4265 ± 80 BP,2315 ± 80 BC (Ecsedy 1979, 21-22, Figure 9, 52).Bellow the kurgan mound three burials were unearthedappearance is especially important since the GAC in the southern Bugregion as well as in the inundation area of the central Dniester-Dnieperbetween 2960-2850 cal BC is contemporaneous with the latest phase ofthe pre-Pit–Grave cultures, and the combination of these two culturesmight have led to the formation of the Pit–Grave culture in the region(Szmyt, 1999, 196). It is possible that the early, cord-impressedamphora found south-west from the Attila-domb at Tápiószentmárton(best analogies were identified by Dinnyés (1973, 39, Table II/9.) in eastSlovakian kurgan burials and from Malai, kurgan No. 9 (Gei 2000,Figure 15:15.) can be listed to this group (Figure 29.1).106 Lkr. Aschersleben-Staßfurt, KIA-162: 4080 ±20 bp, 2620-2570 calBC: Corded Ware–Bell Beakers burial with cord-impressed pottery,hammer-headed bone needle, with Manych type knife, Saxony-Anhalt,Germany (Behrens 1952; Müller 1999, 80).107 Beside the burial dated to the Bell Beakers horizon Manych typearsenic-copper knife (Zimmermann 2003).108 The appearance of Corded Ware culture in Podolia, Volhínia and inthe Upper Vistula regions was contemporary with the decline of theCentral European Corded Ware culture between 2890-2430 cal BC. Theearliest Corded Ware finds are from the inundation area in the UpperDniester area, the spring area of the Western Bug, in the valleys of theGnyla Lypa, Zolota Lypa, Bystritsa Rivers, which is the result of anexpansion into three major directions: the northern directed to theWestern Bug area, the eastern towards Podolia, and at last the southeasternin the direction of Galicia/Halič and the feet of the CarpathianMountains (Szmyt 1999, 114-115).109 The other child burial is a later, secondary grave (Ruttkay 2002;Stadler 2002).(Grave No. 5, 6, 7), among which the position of GraveNo. 6 is identical to, but its orientation slightly differsfrom the that of the primary burial in the Lyukas-halom.However, it has to be noted that this grave was a timberconstruction. The kurgan was built in three phases, GraveNo. 4 belongs to the second, while Grave No. 6 to thefirst construction phase. Both burials were found in thecentre of the mound. Grave No. 6 was dug into the top ofthe first depository layer–thus after the construction ofthe first mound (Ecsedy 1979, 22, Figure 10, 14).Sárrétudvari–Őrhalom:- Grave No. 12: deb-6869, 4520 ±40 BP, 3346-3309 calBC, 1 σ. This is a primary burial of a 15-17 years old girl(?), belonging to the first construction phase (Dani andNepper 2006, 35, 39, Figure 8.2, 48-49; Zoffmann 2006,53).- Grave No. 10: deb-6639, 4350 ± 40 BP, 3004-2960 calBC, 1 σ. It is a west-east oriented grave of a 44-50 yearsold male from the second building period, with a grindingstone deposited bellow the head, and there were animalbones in the fill of the pit (Dani and Nepper 2006, 35,Figure 7.2, 48-49; Zoffmann 2006, 51-53).- Grave No. 4: deb-7182, 4135 ± 60 BP, 2859–2801 calBC, 1 σ. It is a burial of a 41-59 years old male from thesecond building period. Grave deposits: above the headthere was a large amphora typical of the Makó culture,bellow and above the skeleton traces of organic materialwas observed, there was a silver temple ring on the right,while a golden ring was documented at the left ear (Daniand Nepper 2006, 32-33, Figure 4, 48-49; K. Zoffmann2006, 51). 110- Grave No. 9: deb-6871, 4060 ±5 0 BP, 2637–2489 calBC (1 σ). It is a grave of a 23-30 years male from thesecond construction phase. The shape of the grave pit isoval, the skeleton was found in an extended supineposition, the legs were in frog-like position, and thehands were placed on the pelvis. At the right foot animprint of a footwear was found, in the north-east cornerof the grave pit a handled Livezile-type jar was deposited.Moreover, a dog’s tooth was found in the filling of thegrave. At the bottom of the pit evidences for an organicmaterial (blanket) were identified (Dani and Nepper2006, 35, Figure 7.1, 48-49; K. Zoffmann 2006, 51). Theorientation of the grave is identical to the primary burialof the Lyukas-halom. All the burials–except for Grave12, which is the primary burial of the first buildingphase–were arranged in the centre of the kurgan mound.Hajdúnás–Tedej–Lyukas halom:- after the first excavation campaign in 2004 radiocarbondates from the soil matter of the kurgan and a Neolithanimal bone fragment was available (Table 1). Results ofthe soil matter give a information on the age of the soilthat was used to erect the kurgan (the TOC dates arecloser to the reality). This was dated to the Middle/LateCopper Age (see Molnár in this volume for detaileddescription).110 According to the result of Russian scholars, in the vessels depositednext to the head usually water is found, while in those vessels put at thelegs soup or mush is discovered (Shishlina 2000).92

Hajdúnánás–Tedej–Lyukas-halom–An interdisciplinary survey of a typical kurgan from the Great Hungarian Plainregion: a case study (The revision of the kurgans from the territory of Hungary)- in 2009, during the second excavation campaignradiocarbon dates were measured from the firstarchaeological feature – plant remains from the grave –and from the bone of the primer burial that was cut in theA-horizon of palaeosoil (Table 2.)SerialNoTab. 1. 14 C results from the humus, samples extracted in the 2004 excavation campaignCode of the Sample Lab Code Type of the Sample 13 C (PDB)[‰]( ± 0,2 ‰)Conv 14 C date (year BP)*1.Ly-3(Layer 3), Palaeosoil I. A p -horizonDeb-12771 Total Organic Carbon -27,1 4810 ± 90Deb-12956 Humic acid -26,2 5410 902.Ly-6(Layer 6), Palaeosoil II. A p2 -horizonDeb-12764 TOC -27,1 5260 ± 80Deb-13414 Humic acid -26,3 5570 803.Ly-10(Layer 10), recent soil A-horizonDeb-12762 TOC -25,4 705 45Deb-13413 Humic acid -26,1 3020 604.Ly-11(Layer 11), “sackf”soilDeb-12779 TOC -26,7 5090 80Deb-13420 Humic acid -26,8 5810 905.Ly A, soil near the animalbonesDeb-12780 TOC -27,0 5600 80Deb-13419 Humic acid -26,8 6560 906. Ly CS, animal bone Deb-12788 Animal bone -21,0 7720 80*see Molnár and Svingor later in this volume (pp. 255-258.) for detailed description of the radiocarbon measurementsTab. 2. The 14 C dating results of the excavation campaignin 2009Poz-31637: Hajdúnánás 1. Feature–grave? (mat):4270 ± 40BP68.2% probability2920 BC (68.2%) 2870 BC95.4% probability3010 BC (82.3%) 2850 BC2810 BC (11.3%) 2750 BC2720 BC (1.8%) 2700 BCPoz-31405: Hajdunánás 2. Feature–1. grave (human bone):4210 ± 35 BP68.2% probability2890 BC (23.9%) 2860 BC2810 BC (37.3%) 2750 BC2720 BC ( 7.0%) 2700 BC95.4% probability2910 BC (32.0%) 2830 BC2820 BC (63.4%) 2670 BCSimilar observations were made in the case of thesamples from the archaeological features, and thesections from the humus layer of the 2004 excavation,namely that the upper, younger stratigraphic layersproduced a bit older 14 C dates than the primary buildingphase of the kurgan. In this case this means that FeatureNo. 1 was dated by samples taken from the ash of selfburntplant material, which is supposed to present olderdating than bone (old wood effect). Further disturbance ispresumed by a modern robber pit (No. 4), which cuts thisfeature.Nevertheless, the two sample dating correlate well,overlapping each other within the limit of error (e.g.Feature No. 1: 4270–40 = 4230 cal BP–Feature No. 2,Grave No. 1: 4210+35 = 4245 cal BP): consequently,most probably there were only some decades between thetwo construction phases, as it has already been confirmedpreviously by the geological investigations, the93

T. HORVÁTHradiocarbon dating from the humus samples and theexcavation results as well.RomaniaBaia Hamangia: GrN-1995: 4530 ± 50 bp, Bln-29: 4090± 160 bp, KN-38: 4060 ± 160 bp (Bojadžiev 1992).BulgariaIn north-east Bulgaria (in the territories of Carnbrod,Šumen, Madara, Kalugerica, Kjulevač, Plačidol, Zeglara–Orljak, Poručik–Gešanovo, Belogradec, Smolnica andKavarna), in south-east Bulgaria Troyanovo, in southBulgaria Kovačevo, Dolno Sahrane, in middle-northernGoran–Slatina (western orientated), in north-westBulgaria kurgan burials were reported from river valleysand upper plateaus from Trnava, Kneža and Hărlec.Generally, 15-20 kurgans are known in every 0,5-1 km,they are positioned in groups, in ring-like or lineararrangement. The direction of their migration is supposedto follow the line of the Dniester–Danube Rivers. Theyform mixed groups with the Cernavodă III-II, Ezero andMagura–Coţofen III. cultures. In the burials stone circles,fire traces, coloured blankets, sprinkled ochre andwooden constructions are documented. The north-westernterritory is bound up with the south-western Romanianareas, only the Danube River divides the two groups(Rast, south Oltenia, south of Craoiva). The expansion ofthe same group is the appearance of the north Serbiankurgans at the Danube (Jabuka–Tri humke, Padej/Padé).Plačidol: I. (with wagon deposit) Brl-2501: 4170 ± 50BP, Brl-2504: 4042 ± 60 BP (Panayotov 1989).Trnava: Magura–Coţofen III. and Corded Ware with Pit–Grave ceramics, western orientation (Panayotov 1989).Poručik–Gesanov: 4360 ± 50 BP, 4110 ± 50 BP.SerbiaKurgans are documented in the Vajdaság/Vojvodina,Šumadija regions and also in the lower valley of theMorava River (Pančevo, Perlez/Perlesz–Batka, Pašica,Kikinda–Padej/Padé, Vojlovica, Vršec, Vlajkovac,Kragujevac–Bare, Rogojevac, Tasić 1995, 72-74).Padej/Padé: Bln-2219: 4320 ± 50 BP (Tasić 1995, 74).MontenegroVelika Gruda: the first among the three building phasesof kurgan “A” is the first construction period withBaden–Cetina-like pottery, elite Remedello and Pit–Grave type binary metal deposits, and also includes astone construction above the primary burial. According tothe 14 C dating of twelve samples the mound was builtafter 2800–2700 cal BC (Primas 1996, 39-52). In the cistgrave a roughly 25 years old male was found, theskeleton was in a poor condition, the body was orientedtowards north-west–south-east.Eastern European steppes: Ukraine/RussiaIn the Pre-Pit–Grave horizon the Middle (3800/3700–3500/3400 cal BC) and the Late Eneolithic (3500/3400–3000/2900 cal BC) phases are important in relation to thekurgan burial of the Great Hungarian Plain. The MiddleEneolithic Period is contemporary with the beginning ofthe Tripolye B2 phase and the C1 phase (Videiko 2000).From the Danube to the Dnieper the Mikhailovka (lowerstrata), in the northern area, in the Dnieper area theKvityana culture existed, 111 and further to the north, at theDonets River the Dereivka culture was present(Rassamakin 1999, 112-122).The Late Eneolithic is equivalent with the Tripolye C2phase: at the Prut River and the middle Dniester regionthe Gordinesti/Kasperovo Group existed. In the Dniesterregion the Usatovo group was formed, which is markedby Lower Mikhailovka effects, and on the Romaniansection of the Prut–Szeret/Siret Rivers the Horodiştea–Erbiceni variant (Rassamakin 1999, 122-127),contemporary with the Cernavodă III culture.It is debated by Russian scholars, where and whereexactly the Pit–Grave culture was formed. According to awidely accepted view, the antecedent of it was the Repinculture, expanding towards the Don River, while thedeveloping phase is represented by the Pit–Grave culture(in the meaning of V. A. Gorodtsov, see Gorodtsov 1997,291-292); by 3400/3300 cal BC it spread out to theAzovian–Pontic Steppes.Early Bronze Age (3000/2900–2300/2200 cal BC): Theearliest Pit–Grave graves appear between 3400/3300 and3100 cal BC in the south-western shore of the Black Sea,and presumably they spread from the heartland, where theculture was developed. Similar features are detected froma bit later period in the Dnieper, the Azovean Sea and theVolga areas, and they reach the Caspian Sea regionaround 2500 cal BC. The uniform entity can be separatedinto an earlier (3300/3100–3000/2700) and a later(3000/2700–2100/2000 cal BC) horizon (Klochko et al.2003).In the south-western shores of the Black Sea the Pit–Grave community develops from the Kvityana (Post-Mariupol) and the Zhivotilovo–Volchansk (this groupcould have transfered the knowledge of the wheel and thespinning–weaving towards the western areas) and becamemixed with various local cultures as the Tripolye C2groups, the Usatovo, the Kemi–Oba groups, 112 resulting aspecial fusion of cultural elements, 113 which is111 The first appearance of those simple copper jewellery are in theKvityana burials, which are represented in the kurgan burials of theGreat Hungarian Plain (bead, twisted plate, ring, spiral, see footnote nr.81.). Open and also composite moulds are known, all in all 84 finds canbe connected to this so-called Post-Mariupol horizon. Its connectionwith the Carpathian–Balkan metal production zone: the raw materialcame from the Carpathian Basin or the Balkans, resembling their formaland technological traditions, but there is a change from period B1 in theuse of local ores (Volhynia) and independent production (Videiko 2000,65).112 The first plough and wagon representation are depicted on thepetroglyphs in the Pre-Pit-Grave Kemi-Oba culture in the CrimeanPeninsula. This is a real stone-using culture, whose shrines, megalithicmonuments are regularly re-used by the Pit–Grave population (Szmyt1999; Telegin and Mallory 1995).113 It has to be mentioned that the surviving cultures such as the Usatovoculture dating from the period between 3380–2950 cal BC based oneight older radiocarbon dates (see also Rassamakin and Nikolova 2008),or the Kemi-Oba culture dating from 3300-2800 cal BC are bothoverlap the Pit–Grave culture (Szmyt 1999, 103).94

Hajdúnánás–Tedej–Lyukas-halom–An interdisciplinary survey of a typical kurgan from the Great Hungarian Plainregion: a case study (The revision of the kurgans from the territory of Hungary)fundamentally different from the clear Pit–Grave groups(Rassamakin 1999, 127). 114 This region is also stimulatedby strong Central European impulses in this period,which is often referred to as the „Badenization” processof the Tripolye culture, and inspired by the Funnelbeakerculture and the Globular Amphora culture too. This maybe a reasonable explanation for the imported goods andthe ideological resemblances between the two cultures(Videiko 2000). Rassamakin portrays this territory as thecolonization area of the Late Maikop and/or LateTripolye culture (Rassamakin 2004, 217).Consequently, the southern Bug–Dnieper area is a contactzone, where the Tripolye, the Usatovo, the Kemi–Oba,the Lower Mikhailovka, the Zhivotilovo–Volchansk andthe Kvityana cultures meet, and add a varied character tothe developing Pit–Grave culture. It can be presumed thatthis zone is the main starting point for the steppeanpopulations migrating to the Great Hungarian Plain.The earliest formation on the Catacomb culture in thenorthern Pontus region around 2800 cal BC iscontemporaneous with the catacomb-like graves of theZłota culture and the Kraków–Sandomierz Group of theCorded Ware culture (phase I and II) in Little Poland(Ślusarska 2006, 64, 156: between 2750–2300/2200 calBC). 115At the same time the Pit–Grave culture (based on 210 14 Cdates) and the Catacomb culture (or rather entity, perhapsan ethno-social unit, cultural-historical community afterRassamakin, Anthony and Ślusarska) not only lived sideby side geographically for centuries, but also in the samehorizon between 2800–2200 cal BC in the northernPontus steppe (the Catacomb culture is listed to theMiddle Bronze Age, 699 graves, 206 kurgans, 74 14 Cdating, and based on 6 regional test groups, see Telegin etal. 2003, 151-184). 116Its development is debated: according to the autochthontheory it diverged from the Pit–Grave culture uponstimulations from Ciscaucasia (reasoning on the mixed114 For instance shows all types of flexed burials.115 However, except for few examples, such as Kolosy, these are notkurgan burials (e.g. Kraków–Częstochowa group), and other rites arenot corresponding. Thus, cannot be interpreted as real catacomb burials(Ślusarska 2006, 134, 156).116 Cattle and small ruminant breeders, with cyclic herding lifestylehorse-breeding was less important as it was suggested before. Its metalproduction was based on the arsenic-bronze technology of the northCaucasus. Ślusarska (2006, 26) claimed that this population had a majorinfluence as merchants, and supervised salt-sources in the northCrimean area. Their role as mediators in the Near East–Caucasus–Northern and Central Europe is considered to be noteworthy (see thespreading of metals, marine trade, steles). Pustovalov applied a triplehierarchic division, in which system the highest power was held by theIngul-Catacomb group, also dominating the diabase mines along theIngulets River, and the ochre mines around Krivoj Rog. This populationproduced and circulated these key trade products. Thus by the redistributionand control of mining they gained hegemony on the twoother groups: the Eastern-Catacomb and the Pit–Grave cultures(Ślusarska 2006, 28). Whichever theory would prove to be correct, thereare numerous examples on the skeletons of both cultures, where injuriescaused by the other culture’s weapons were clearly observed,consequently these two cultures held war against each other (seeKlochko 2001).burials in the Ural–Samara/Kuybishev region), while theallochton hypothesis recommend influences from outsidethe Pontic area, from the Near–East, mainly arguing thecatacomb–pit grave feature (Ślusarska 2006). There aremany resemblances (burying bellow kurgan mounds,usage of catacombs, the positioning of the dead) andsimilar object types (hammer-headed pin, 117 animal teeth,bone objects, vessel types, some stone tools and metaltypes, see Ślusarska 2006, 43) can be found between thetwo units. 118 Around 2800 cal BC the formerly uniformPit–Grave amalgamation fell apart: in the Ural–Volgaregion the Poltavka culture developed, around 2500 calBC in the Don-Kuban region the Catacomb culturebecame characteristic among the local groups.At the same time, it was proved that in somesystematically researched regions such as Kalmykia itwas apparent that from time to time there can beconsiderable variations in the burial rites and gravedeposits even within one group: here for instance theeastern Manych River area was the richest (Shishlina2000). In the semi-desert environment, the centres werelocated in grassy, island-like habitats.DISCUSSIONThe above specified descriptions on the geographical–spatial distribution, the lifestyle, the stratigraphic, theburial, the relative and the absolute chronologicalcharacteristics allows us to infer the following hypothesisabout the penetration of the steppean populations to therecent territory of Hungary 119 :Period I: Steppean ochre graveGreat Hungarian Plain: the burial at Csongrád–Kettőshalom is not considered to be a kurgan burial, butrather it should be identified as a steppean ochre grave.Dating: in considering the Marosdécse burial its age isbetween 4200-4100 cal BC (Govedarica 2004, 71) = it is117 The only find in Hungary comes from Szarvas (Kalicz 1968, CXII.T/21). Presumably it was a sling (see Morgunova 2004, 68; Morgunovaet al. 2005, Risz. 20). In the Mu-Saret expedition identicallyornamented hammer-headed bone pin was found in a Pit–Grave and aCatacomb kurgan burial (Tsutskin and Sishlina 2001, 125).118 Despite this Ślusarska defined in five points the most characteristicfeatures of the Catacomb culture (Catacomb package): 1. the bodies arepositioned in a circular arrangement inside the kurgan, in the edge of themound, 2. the catacomb is always dug into an earlier kurgan mound, 3.the skeleton is in an extended supine position, in flexed position on theright side, the head is left from the entrance of the grave, there are nodifferences between male and female burials concerning the position ofthe body, 4. the preparation of the graves (ochre sprinkle, painting ofthe grave base, masks), 5. relative poorness of grave goods (Ślusarska2006, 161).119 With the proviso that: instead of the strict chronological sequence ofsucceeding cultures the latest radiocarbon dating of sites suggest thatprehistoric cultures in the Carpathian Basin are much more frequentlycontemporary, or overlapping each other in both temporal and territorialmeans (e.g. Tiszapolgár–Bodrogkeresztúr - Pre-Pit–Grave / Skelya;Boleráz-Baden - Pre-Pit–Grave / Kvityana - Pit–Grave, Pit–Grave -Catacomb; Baden IV - Makó/Epi-Corded Ware cultures – Pit–Grave/Catacomb - Bell Beakers Csepel group - early Somogyvár-Vinkovci), consequently, such attempts to interpret this period on alinear periodisation an parallelisation is basically misleading.95

T. HORVÁTHcontemporary with the Early Copper Age Tiszapolgárculture (Ecsedy 1979, 12).Eastern Europe: the period of the Early Eneolithic (4550–4100/4000 cal BC) in the Eastern Steppe region. Theperiod of the Khvalynsk, Skelya cultures iscontemporaneous with the Cucuteni A–Tripolye B1phase (which populations played a significant role in themediation between steppean and peasant communities),moreover analogous with the Bulgarian Aldeni–Bolgradculture and the Varna culture, whose prosperity isidentified by the elite of the Skelya culture (thispopulation could have been the intermediator between thePre-Caucasia–Kuban area and the Varna culture, uponwhich stimulation the affluence of the Varna culturedeveloped).The Middle Eneolithic Period of the Eastern Steppe(3800/3700–3500/3400 cal BC) can be described by theCucuteni B–Tripolye B2-C1 phase (Tomashevo,Zhvanetsk, Kosenovo groups, and the so called early„Polgárization” process), with the Cernavodă I culture,and the Scheibenhenkel horizon, in the east the LowerMikhailovka, Kvityana, Dereivka, Pivikha, Repin and theMaikop cultures. 120 In Hungary this is the Middle–ClassicCopper Age, with the Bodrogkeresztúr and theHunyadihalom cultures.In my opinion the burial at Csongrád fits to this horizon,and most probably arrived to the Carpathian Basin as anearly wave of eastern Eneolithic populations.The former theory suggested by Ecsedy is under change:the radiocarbon dates of Marocsdécse showed an olderperiod. At Rákóczifalva–Bagi-föld, on the base of 79graves of the Bodrogkeresztúr cemetery from the MiddleCopper Age, 9 samples show that the cemetery can bedated to 4334–4075 cal BC. It means that this cemeterypartly contemporaneous with Tiszapolgár culture of EarlyCopper Age (Csányi et al. 2008). Based on thesuccessivity of both cultures, we have to suppose that theparalellism and overlapping of these cultures appearedbetween 4300–4000 cal BC. Into this mosaic as a thirdfact, we have to include the first appearance of thesteppean populations, to complete this idea, we mustpoint out that it is not conceivable that this populationonly consist of one single man found at Csongrád-Kettőshalom.120 There is a so-called “steppe-hiatus” between the early and middlephase of the Eneolithic between 4100/4000–3800/3700 cal BC(Rassamakin 1999, Table 3.2).Period II: Pre-Pit–Grave horizonThe Late Eneolithic Period in the Steppe areas(3500/3400–3000/2900 cal BC) was contemporary withthe Late Repin, the Late Konstantinovka, theNovosvobodnaja, the late Kvityana, the late Dereivka andthe late Lower Mikhailovka cultures, the Tripolye C2(with the Sofievka, Kasperovo/Gordinesti, Gorodsk,Usatovo groups, and the end of the „Polgárization” withBoleráz imports, and with the „Badenization process”)together with local groups in the Dnieper–Bug, Kemi–Oba communities, which are analogous with the Boleráz,and then with the Cernavodă III–Classic Baden cultures.The earliest kurgan graves of the Great Hungarian Plaincan be classified into the Pre-Pit–Grave horizon (theprimary phase of the multi-depository kurgans, such asHaldúnánás–Tedej–Lyukas-halom, the ochre graves inthe Hortobágy region, which all lack grave deposits, andalso those burials with grave chambers lined with someorganic material). Differentiating between Period I, thisphase might be categorized as, and dated after the burialsat Sárrétudvari and Hajdúnánás–Tedej–Lyukas-halombetween 3400/3350–3300/3000–2750 cal BC.Period III: Early Pit–Grave horizonIn the eastern Steppe region this is the period of the EarlyBronze Age, which corresponds with the Early Pit–Gravehorizon, with surviving groups (Usatovo) dating from3300/3100–3000/2700 cal BC. In the Great HungarianPlain the younger building period for the multi-phasedkurgan mounds, moreover, the wood-constructed burialswith no or poor grave deposits can also be linked to thisperiod, and this Late Copper Age horizon can beassociated with the end of the Late Copper Age–EarlyBronze Age transitional period, including the LateClassic surviving Baden/Coţofeni IIIa,b culture. Thiscould be called Early Pit–Grave Horizon.Hypothetically–because of lacking radiocarbon dates–thisperiod can be dated between 3300/3100–2900/2700 calBC, which overlapped Period II.Period IV/(V.?): Late Pit–Grave horizon with strongCatacomb influencesThe Early Bronze Age in the eastern steppe, that is theLate Pit–Grave horizon, contemporary with theCatacomb entity, dated between 2800/2700–2100/2000cal BC. In the Great Hungarian Plain this is the latest,third construction phase of the kurgans when rich metaldeposits and Early Bronze Age ceramic sets appear. It iscontemporary with Period I of the Early Bronze Age andincludes the surviving Baden, the Vučedol, the Makó–Kosihy–Čaka, the Early Somogyvár–Vinkovci, Glina–Schneckenbeg A and the Coţofen IIIc–Livezile cultures,and dated to 2900/2800–2500/2400 cal BC, according tothe radiocarbon dates of the Nezsider, Velika Gruda andthe second building phase of the Sárrétudvari kurgan.Since catacomb grave pits are missing from theHungarian (besides Austrian Serbian–Montenegro,Romanian, and Slovakian) kurgans and tumuli, this96

Hajdúnánás–Tedej–Lyukas-halom–An interdisciplinary survey of a typical kurgan from the Great Hungarian Plainregion: a case study (The revision of the kurgans from the territory of Hungary)horizon is in accordance with the Polish CWC cist gravesunder mounds, however, concerning the identity of thishorizon, it cannot be grouped to the Catacomb culture.The affluent arsenic bronze and gold grave goods, thesecondary burials into the kurgans, and the arrangementalong the outer circle can be a Catacomb influence(however, all these features are represented in the LatePit–Grave culture). Since the contemporaneity as well asthe intermingling of the two cultures have been proved inthe south-west Pontic area. Because of this phenomenon,this fourth phase can be referred to as Late Pit–GraveHorizon with strong Catacomb influences.It can be presumed that this period enters into the secondphase of the Bronze Age (Period V?): the Somogyvár–Vinkovci type burials, the eastern Slovakian mounds withNyírség type pottery, at the same period with theemergence of the Bell Beaker culture and the Proto-Nagyrév culture (see Bóna 1994). 121 The study period isan excellent example to illustrate how contemporarycultures amalgamated, since in the Budapest region it isnearly impossible to differentiate the Bell Beaker andEarly Nagyrév–Makó cultures because both settlementsand burials are documented as a special mixture (Kalicz-Schreiber and Kalicz 1998-2000). 122The resettling steppean communities in Period II andPeriod III can be identified with mixed cultural entities ofthe Pit–Grave culture, and the strongly Tripolye C2–Usatovo-stimulated Kvityana groups, arriving from thePontic area into the territory of the Great HungarianPlain. The direction of the migration led fromMoldova, 123 through the passes of the CarpathianMountains and also along the main waterways such as thevalleys of the Berettyó, Maros/Mureş Rivers and stoppedat the line of the Tisza River. 124In Period IV/(and V?) the intercultural connections withlocal cultures inside the Carpathian Basin strengthenedand broadened out in a way that the cultural identity ofthe originally Catacomb-influenced late Pit–Grave groupsdiluted, thus it is even more problematic to reconstructtheir route than in the earlier periods. The base of thiswave would be the, Maikop-inspired Zhivotilovo–Volchansk Group, the origin of which rooted in the121 The beginning of Reinecke-A Bronze Age (not earlier as 2300 calBC) is identical with the begining of the phase 3 of the Hungarian EarlyBronze Age. Thus, when discussing phase I or phase II of the HungarianEarly Bronze Age this corresponds with the final Eneolithic, LateNeolithic periods and cultures in Europe (see Horváth 2004c, 43).122 It was not only proved in the central part of the country (see forinstance the presentation given by János Dani and Katalin Tóth at theMΩMOΣ VI. conference on the burial at Panyola). Lacking radiocarbondating it cannot be decided whether the original Pit–Grave populationexperienced the suggested period V. Strong Pit–Grave influence can beshown in forming or developed local cultures’ kurgan burials in periodV (Somogyvár-Vinkovi, Vučedol, Nyírség, etc.).123 The anthropological similarity is the strongest between the kurgansin the Carpathian Basin and Moldavia (see K. Zoffman later in thisvolume).124 It is an additional feature of the amalgamation that not only Proto-Indo-European anthropological material is identified from Hungariankurgan burials (see Marcsik 1979; Zoffmann 2006).Eneolithic, originally settled in the Prut–Don interfluveregion (also transmitting the techniques of wheel/wagon,weaving/spinning/woolly sheep, and the preparation ofthe deads’ face from the Maikop/Novosvobodnajaculture), which experienced Tripolye colonization. Thedirect route of this even farther living group, on whicharrived into Central Europe is probably different from theprevious periods: another road along the Danube seems tobe dominating and interweaving the whole CarpathianBasin by using the wheel and wagon (Plačidol), and adeveloped metal production based on arsenic bronze rawmaterials. The main cause for this large-scale migration isin all probability was the drastic change in ecologicalcircumstances caused by a drier climate and overgrazingthe meadows (Shishlina 2000). 125Anthony (2007, 362-364) recommended that steppeanpeople arriving to the Great Hungarian Plain came fromeast of the Usatovo settlement area, from the south Bug–Ingul–Dnieper region: the earliest west-oriented Pit–Grave kurgans are situated there (for example Bal’ki witha deposited wagon and one wooden plough-toothRassamakin 1999, Figure 3.58). The steppe along theLower Dniester was occupied by the Usatovo culturebetween 3100–2800 BC, but the Pit–Grave graves (datedto 2800–2400 BC) usually cover these features.Accordingly, the majority of them are dated after themigration to the Great Hungarian Plain. Thus, Anthonysupposed that the Dniester variant is a sign of a returnmigration from the Danube valley and the GreatHungarian Plain to that region. Although this is a verypleasant theory, it cannot be verified in the study area:without much more excavation results and radiocarbondates, moreover without the overall revision of theUsatovo culture, this debate cannot be settled (for this seealso Rassamakin and Nikolova 2008, 13).Furthermore, the migrating route sketched by Harrisonand Heyd (2007, 194, Figure 43) cannot be accepted forthe whole period. This migration lead from the mouth ofthe Dnieper River, went around the CarpathianMountains from the northern and southern directions andreached the Great Hungarian Plain. The radiocarbon datesof the kurgans in Serbia, Montenegro and Bulgaria are alllater or can be correlated with Period IV/V (e.g. in thecase of the kurgan at Jabuka in Serbia an individual layerof soil formation was documented after a Kostolacstratum, upon which the kurgan was built; in Bulgaria inkurgan No. 1 at Trnava, Coţofen and Pit–Grave ceramicswith corded decoration were excavated (Anthony 2007,363, Figure 14.6); in the filling of the kurgan at VelikaGruda Late Baden–Early Vučedol/Kotor phase–Cetina/Kotorac pottery was documented, EH II/III:Primas 1996). Their spread belongs to another cluster,which is connected to the waterways of the Danube Deltaand the Lower Danube. Thus, this route can be confirmedonly in the later phases of Period IV/V. What is more, the125 According to Golyeva, in Kalmykia in most of the kurgans the buriedsoil was degraded and eroded. This phenomenon was furtherdeteriorated in the transformation period of the Pit–Grave/Catacomb bythe drier climate and overgrazing (Golyeva 2000).97

T. HORVÁTHhypothesis about the so-called “Pit–Grave package” issimilarly not entirely applicable (Harrison and Heyd2007, 196-197). In relation to the Russian archaeologicalliterature (Saposnikova et al. 1988; Levine et al. 1999;Shishlina 2000; Tsutskin and Shishlina 2001; Morgunovaet al. 2003; Morgunova 2004; Rassamakin 2004; Merpertet al. 2006), the third (social status and sex is markedlyexpressed), 126 the fourth (craftsmen are in an elite status)and the eighth (the importance of the horse)characteristics are not confirmed. Irrespective of this, thecomplex stimulation of the eastern, steppean populationscannot be rejected in the investigated period in theresearch area.At last, it is hoped that the new excavation results and aseries of 14 C data discussed in this study from thewesternmost zone of these cultures further enhanced thisextremely complex and problematic jigsaw puzzle withsome new mosaics.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTThe author is thankful for the support of theArchaeological Institue of the Hungarian Academy ofSciences, the Hungarian Scientific Research Fund(OTKA) and National Cultural Found (NKA).REFERENCES CITEDAz 1. katonai felmérés: 1782-1785, a Magyar Királyságteljes területe. [First Ordinance Survey] ArcanumAdatbázis Kft, DVD, 2004.A 2. katonai felmérés: Magyar Királyság és TemesiBánság. [Second Ordinance Survey] ArcanumAdatbázis Kft, DVD, 2005.Anthony, D. W. 2007. Horse, the Wheel and Language.How Bronze-Age riders from the Eurasian steppesshaped the Modern World. Princeton-Oxford.B. Kovács, I. 1987. Hügelgräberfelder der BadenerKultur im Slanatal. (Vorläufige Bemerkungen zumBestattungritus und Chronologie). In: Tasić, N. andSrejović, D. (eds.), Hügelbestattung in der Karpaten-Balkan-Zone während der äneolitischen Periode,Internat. Symposium 1985, 99-105, Beograd.Banner, J. 1929. A görög pyraunos eredete.–DerUrsprung des griechischen Pyraunos. Dolgozatok 5,52-81.Banner, J. 1956. Die Péceler Kultur. ArchaeologiaHungarica XXXV, Budapest, Akadémiai kiadó.Barczi, A. 2004. The importance of pedologicalinvestigations in Holocene palaeoecologicalreconstructions. A case study (Hortobágy, Hungary).Antaeus 27, 129-134.126 And also with Ivanova 2003. It has to be considered that a kurganburial was a kind of privilege for a not thoroughly identified socialgroup, thus kurgan burials cannot be taken as a mirror for the wholecontemporary society. The social differences reflected in the Pit–Gravegraves are rather resembling differences in local, territorial accessibilityof raw materials and resources (for example the valley of the RiverManych, Kalmykia) (Shishlina 2000), not social or status preferences.Barczi, A. 2009. Kunhalmok eltemetett talajainakvizsgálata. [Investigation of buried palaeosoils ofkurgans] Gödöllő, manuscript. (in Hungarian)Barczi, A., Penksza, K. and Joó, K. 2004a. Research ofsoil-plant connections on kurgans in Hungary.Ekológia Bratislava 23, Supplement 1, 15-22.Barczi, A., Penksza, K. and Joó, K. 2004b. Alföldikunhalmok talaj-növény összefüggés-vizsgálata.[Geobotanical studies of kurgans in the GreatHungarian Plain] In: A. Tóth (ed.), A kunhalmokról–más szemmel, 45-56. Kisújszállás-Debrecen,Alföldkutatásért Alapítvány-Hortobágyi NemzetiPark Igazgatósága. (in Hungarian)Barczi, A., Khokhlova, O.S. and Pető, Á. 2006a.Исследование палеопочв, погребенных подкурганами, для проведения палеоэкологическихреконструкций (первый опыт на примеребольшого кургана в Хортобадь, Венгрия) (Theimportance of pedological investigations in Holocenepalaeoecological reconstructions. A case study:Hortobágy, Hungary). Ecology and Soils. Lecturesand reports of the XIII th Russian scientific school V,43-52.Barczi, A., Golyeva, A.A. and Pető, Á. 2006b. Additionaldata on the palaeoenvironmental reconstruction ofthe Lyukas-mound based on biomorphic andpedological analysis. Bulletin of the Szent IstvánUniversity, 51-71.Barczi, A., Joó, K., Pető, Á. and Bucsi, T. 2006c. Surveyof the buried palaeosoil under the Lyukas-mound inHungary. Eurasian Soil Science, 39/1, 133-140.Barczi, A., Horváth T., Joó, K., Csanády, A. and Dani, J.2008. Egy alföldi kunhalom feltárása. [Excavation ofa kurgan on the Great Hungarian Plain] (In: Csorba,P. and Fazekas, I. (eds.), Tájkutatás–tájökológia,299-308. Debrecen, Meridián Kiadó. (in Hungarian)Barczi, A., Golyeva, A.A. and Pető, Á. 2009.Palaeoenvironmental reconstruction of Hungariankurgans on the basis of the examination ofpalaeosoils and phytolith analysis. QuaternaryInternational 193, 49-60.Bátora, J. 1983. Záver eneolitu a zaciatok doby bronzovejna východnom Slovensku. Historia Carpatica 14,169-226, Kosice.Bátorá, J. 2002. Contribution to the problem of„Craftsmen”-graves at the end of Aeneolithic and inthe Early Bronze Age in Central, Western andEastern Europe. Slovenská Archaeológia L/2, 179-228.Behrens, H. 1952. Ein äneolithisches Bechergrab ausMitteldeutschland mit beinerner Hammerkopfnadelund Kupfergeräten. Jahresschr. Mitteldt. Vorgesch.36, 53–69.Bojadžiev, I. 1992. Probleme derRadiohohlenstoffdatierung der Kulturen derSpätneolithikums und der Frühbronzezeit. StudiaPrähistorica 11-12, 384-406.Bóna, I. 1965. The Peoples of Southern Origin of theEarly Bronze Age in Hungary. Alba Regia 4/5, 1965,17-63.Bóna, I. 1986. Szabolcs-Szatmár megye régészetiemlékei. [The archaeological remains of Szabolcs-98

Hajdúnánás–Tedej–Lyukas-halom–An interdisciplinary survey of a typical kurgan from the Great Hungarian Plainregion: a case study (The revision of the kurgans from the territory of Hungary)Szatmár County] In: Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg megyeműemlékei, 15-55, Nyíregyháza. (in Hungarian)Bóna, I. 1993. A honfoglalás előtti kultúrák és népek.[The Cultures and nations before the HungarianConquest Period] In: Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg megyemonográfiája, I. kötet–Történelem és kultúra, 63-137, Nyíregyháza. (in Hungarian)Bóna, I. 1994. Les cultures des tells de l’Age du Bronzeen Hongrie. In: Le bel Age du Bronze en Hongrie.Mont-Beauvrey, 9-39.Bondár, M. 2002. A badeni kultúra kutatási helyzeteMagyarországon. Vázlat. Der Forschungsstand derBadener Kultur in Ungarn. Abriß. Móra FerencMúzeum Évkönyve-Studia Archaeologia VIII, 7-30.(in Hungarian)Bökönyi, S. 1979. Copper Age vertebrate fauna fromKétegyháza. In: Ecsedy, I. (ed.), The peoples of thepit-grave kurgans in Eastern-Hungary. FontesArchaeologici Hungariae, 101-118., Budapest.Buchwaldek, M. 1966. Die Schnurkeramik inMitteleuropa. Pamatniki Arch 1966:1.Chernykh, E.N., Kuzminykh, S.V., Lebedeva, E.Y. andLunkov, V.Y. 2000. Isszledovanyije kurgannovomogilnyika u sz. Persin.–Exploitation of the burialground at Pershin. Arheologicseszkije pamjátnyikiOrenburzsjá IV, 63-84.Ciugudean, H. 1982. Stela antropomorfa de la Pianu deJos (Jud. Alba). Apulum XX, 59-63.Ciugudean, H. 2000. Eneolithicul final in Transilvania siBanat: cultra Cotofeni. Bibliotheca Historica etArch. Banatica, Timişoara.Csalog, J. 1954. A balmazújvárosi Kárhozott-halomfeltárása. [The excavation of Balmazújváros-Kárhozott-halom] Folia Archologica VI, 37-44. (inHungarian)Csányi, M. andTárnoki, J. 1995. Halom-feltárásKunhegyes határában. (Kunhegyes-Nagyálláshalom). [Kurgan-excavation near Kunhegyes] In:Ujváry, Z. (ed.), Tanulmányok és Közlemények, 27-48, Debrecen-Szolnok. (in Hungarian)Csányi, M., Raczky, P. and Tárnoki, J. 2008: Előzetesjelentés a rézkori bodrogkeresztúri kultúraRákóczifalva–Bagi–földön feltárt temetőjéről. –Preliminary report on the cemetery of theBodrogkeresztúr culture excavated at Rákóczifalva–Bagi–föld. Tisicum XVIII, 13–34.Dani, J. 2001. A Kárpát-medence ÉK-i részénekkulturális és kronológiai kérdései a kora bronzkoridőszakában. [Cultural and chronological questionsconcerning the NE part of the Carpathian Basin in theEarly Bronze Age] MΩMOΣ I, 129-160. (inHungarian)Dani, J. 2004. Nyírség-kultúra temetkezései Hajdúnánás-Fekete-halom lelőhelyről. [Burials of the NyírségCulture at Hajdúnánás-Fekete-halom] Ősrégészetilevelek 6, 27-37. (in Hungarian)Dani, J. 2005a. The Hortobágy in the Bronze Age. In:Gál, E., Juhász, I. and Sümegi, P. (eds.),Environmental Archaeology in North-EasternHungary. Varia Archaeologia XIX, 283-300.Dani, J. 2005b. A Felső-Tisza-vidék kora bronzkora atell-kultúrákat megelőző időszakban. [The EarlyBronze Age of Upper-Theiss-environment before thetell-cultures] Ph.D. dissertation, ELTE-RI, Budapest,2005, manuscript.Dani, J. and Nepper, I. 2006. Sárrétudvari-Őrhalom.Tumulus grave from the beginning of the EBA inEastern Hungary. Communicationes ArchaeologicaeHungariae, 29-58.Dani, J. and Szilágyi, K. 2006. Előzetes jelentés aBerettyóújfalu-Nagy-Bócs-dűlő lelőhelyen 2004-2005 során végzett megelőző feltárásokról.[Preliminary reports of Berettyóújfalu-Nagy-Bócsdűlő, excavation campaign 2004-2005] BihariMúzeum Évkönyve X-XI, 1-31. (in Hungarian)Dinnyés, I. 1973. A Blaskovich Múzeum régészetigyűjteménye. [The archaeological collection of theBlaskovich Museum] Studia Comitatensia 2, 37-70.(in Hungarian)Ecsedy, I. 1984. The People of the Pit-grave Kurgans inEastern Hungary. Fontes Archaeologici Hungariae,Budapest, Akadémiai Kiadó.Eliade, M. 2004. Kovácsok és alkimisták. [Forgerons etalchimistes. Nouvelle édition corrigée et augmentée].Budapest, Cartaphilus kiadó. (in Hungarian)Endrődi, A. (ed.) 2004. Hétköznapok és vallásos élet arézkor végén. A Baden kultúra 5000 éves emlékeBudapesten. [Everyday life and spirituality a the endof the Copper Age. 5000 years old remains of theBaden Culture in Budapest] Budapest. (in Hungarian)Ferenczi, I. 1997. Észrevételek az erdélyi rézkor keletinépi és műveltségi elemeivel kapcsolatban.–Erwägungen zu den Elementen östlicher Herkunft intranssilvanien während des Übergangs vomNeolithikum zur Bronzezeit. Szolnok MegyeiMúzeumi Adattár 33, Szolnok. (in Hungarian)Gazdapusztai Gy. 1964. Balmazújváros-Kettőshalom.Ásatási jelentés. [Balmazújváros-KettőshalomExcavation report] Magyar Nemzeti MúzeumAdattára, XIII/január/53/1964. (in Hungarian)Gazdapusztai, Gy. 1965. Zur Fragen der Verbreitung dessogennanten „Ockergräberkultur” in Ungarn. MóraFerenc Múzeum Évkönyve 1963-1965, 31-38.Gei, A.N. 2000. Novotitarovskaja kultura. InstitutArheologii, Moszkva.Gerasimova M.I., Gubin, S.V. and Shoba, S.A. 1996. Soilformation in Greyzems in Moscow district:micromorphology, chemistry, clay mineralogy andparticle size distribution. In: Miedema, R. (ed.), Soilsof Russia and Adjacent Countries: Geography andMicromorphology. Van Gils, Wageningen, TheNetherlands.Girić, M. 1982. Über die Erforschung der Grabhügel inder Wojwodina. In: Atti del X SimposioInternazionale sulla fine del Neolitico e gli inizidell’etá del Bronzo in Europa, Lazise-Verona 1980,99-105, Verona.Golyeva, A.A. 2000. Man and nature in the North-West-Caspian Sea region during the Bronze Age. In:Shishlina 2000, 163-168.Gorodtsov, V.A. 1997. Davna istoriya Ukraini. NaukowaDumka Vol. 1, Kyiv.Govedarica, B. 2004. Zepterträger–Herrscher derSteppen. Die frühen Ockergräber des älteren99

T. HORVÁTHAneolithikums im karpatenbalkanischen Gebiet undim Steppenraum Südost- und Osteuropas.Heidelberger Akademia der Wissenschaften.Internationale Interakademische Kommission für dieErforschung der Vorgeschichte des Balkans. H.Hauptmann (Hrsg.), Monographien Band VI.Gumă, M. 1997. Epoca bronzului în Banat. Orizonturicronologice şi manifestări culturale. In: The BronzeAge in Banat. Chronological levels and culturalentities. Bibliotheca Historica et ArchaeologicaBanatica V, Timişoara.György, L. 2008. A Baden-kultúra telepe Mezőkövesd-Nagy-Fertőn. [Die Siedlung der Badener Kultur inMezőkövesd-Nagy-Fertő] Miskolc, Borsod–Abaúj–Zemplén megye régészeti emlékei 7. (in Hungarian)Harrison, R. and Heyd, V. 2007. The Transformation ofEurope in the Third Millenium BC: the example of’Le Petit-Chassuer I + III’ (Sion, Valais,Switzerland). Praehistorische Zeitschrift 82, 129-214.Horváth, Tibor 2008. Hajdúsági „Kunhalom” kataszter.[The Cadaster of cumanian barrows at Hajdúság] AHajdúsági Múzeum Évkönyve XI, 7-41. (inHungarian)Horváth, T. 2004a. New human representation from theBaden Culture: a Mask from Balatonőszöd. ActaArchaeologica Academiae Scientirum Hungaricae55, 179-237.Horváth, T. 2004b. Emberi vázakat tartalmazóobjektumok Balatonőszöd-Temetői dűlő badenitelepüléséről.–Human burials from the Badensettlement of Balatonőszöd-Temetői dűlő. SomogyiMúzeumok Közleményei 16, 71-111.Horváth, T. 2004c. Néhány megjegyzés a vatyai kultúrafémművességéhez. Technológiai megfigyelések akultúra kőeszközein. [Die Metallkunst der Vatya-Kultur.–Technologische Beobachtungen an ihrenSteingeräten] Communicationes ArchaeologicaeHungariae 2004, 11-64. (in Hungarian)Horváth, T. 2006. Állattemetkezések Balatonőszöd-Temetői dűlő badeni lelőhelyen. [Animal-burials inthe Late Copper Age Baden Site: Balatonőszöd-Temetői dűlő.] Somogyi Múzeumok Közleményei 17,107-152. (in Hungarian)Horváth, T. 2008. Sozialmorphologische Studie derspätkupferzeitlichen Baden-(Pécel)-Kultur.Mitteilungen der Antropologischen Gessellschaft inWien 138, 159-203.Horváth, T. 2009. The intercultural connections of theBaden „Culture”. MΩMOΣ VI, 101-150.Horváth, T., Köhler, K. and Kustár, Á. 2009. Életmód éshabitus a késő rézkori badeni-kultúrában régészeti ésantropológiai adatok alapján. [Lifestyle and mentalhabits of the Late Copper Age Baden culture in thelight of the archaeological and anthropologicalevidence.] In: Bende, L. and Lőrinczy, G. (eds.),Medinától Etéig. Régészeti tanulmányok CsalogJózsef születésének 100. évfordulójára. Szentes,2009, 269-277.Horváth, T. 2010. Manifestation des Transzendenten inder Badener Siedlung von Balatonőszöd-Temetőidűlő–Kultgegenstände. Prähistorische Zeitschrift 85,79-119.Huszár, M. 1985. Vízrajzi értekezés. Huszár Mátyásleírása a Körösvidékről. [Hydrogeologicaldissertation about Körös-region] In: Kósa, F. (ed.),From latin original transleted: Lakatos, P. Gyula,Körösvidéki Vízügyi Igazgatóság. (in Hungarian)Ivanova, S. 2003. The social differentiation in the Pit-Grave Culture Society: a reconstruction based onburial data. In: Nikolova, L (ed.), Early SymbolicSystems for Communication in Southeast Europa.BAR International Series 1139, Vol. 1, 155-167.Joó, K., Barczi, A. and Sümegi, P. 2007. Study of soilscientific, layer scientific and palaeoecologicalrelations of the Csípő-mound kurgan. In: Atti dellaSocieta Toscana di Scienze Naturali, Mem. Serie A,Vol. 112, 141-144.Jósa, A. 1897. Szabolcs megyei őshalmok. [Prehistoricalmound of Szabolcs] Archaeológiai Értesítő XVII,318-325. (in Hungarian)Kalicz, N. 1968. Die Frühbronzezeit in Nordost-Ungarn.Archaeologica Hungarica XLV, Budapest.Kalicz, N. 1998. Östliche Beziehungen während derKupferzeit in Ungarn. In: Hänsel, B. and Machnik, J.(eds.), Das Karpatenbecken und die osteuropäischeSteppe. Prähistorische Archaeologie 12, 163-177.Kalicz, N. 1999. A késő rézkori Báden kultúra temetőjeMezőcsát-Hörcsögösön és Tiszavasvári-Gyepároson.[Das Gräberfeld der spätkupferzeitlichen BadenerKultur in Mezőcsát-Hörcsögös und in Tiszavasvári-Gyepáros] Herman Ottó Múzeum Évkönyve XXXVII,57-101. (in Hungarian)Kalicz-Schreiber, R. and Kalicz, N. 1998-2000. Aharangedény szerepe a Budapest környékei korabronzkor társdalmi viszonyainak megjelenésében.[The role of bell beaker in reflecting social relationsin the Early Bronze Age of Budapest] ArchaeológiaiÉrtesítő 125, 45-79. (in Hungarian)Klochko, V.I. 2001. Weaponry of societies of theNorthern Pontic Culture Circle: 5000-700 BC.Baltic-Pontic Studies, Vol. 10.Klochko, V.I. 2002. Maces of the Neolithic-Bronze Ageof the Northern Pontic Region. In: Fluted maces inthe system of long-distance exchange trails of theBronze Age: 2350-800 BC. Baltic-Pontic StudiesVol. 11, 22-31.Klochko, V.I., Kosko, A. and Szmyt, M. 2003.Chronology of the Prehistory of the Area betweenVistula and Dnieper: 4000-1000 BC. Baltic-PonticStudies, Vol. 12, 396-415.Korek, J. 1983. Közép-Kelet-Európa a rézkor végén.[Central-East-Europe in the Late Copper Age]Budapest, doktori disszertáció, manuscript.Korek, J. 1985. Adatok a bolerázi csoport alföldielterjedéséhez.–Beiträge zur Verbreitung derBoleráz-Gruppe im Alföld. Archaeológiai Értesítő112, 193-206.Kovács, I. 1944. A marosdécsei rézkori temető. [The CopperAge Cemetery of Marosdécse] Közlemények az erdélyiNemzeti Múzeum Történeti tárából 4/1-2, 3-21. (inHungarian)100

Hajdúnánás–Tedej–Lyukas-halom–An interdisciplinary survey of a typical kurgan from the Great Hungarian Plainregion: a case study (The revision of the kurgans from the territory of Hungary)Levine, M. 1999. The Origins of Horse Husbandry on theEurasian Steppe. In: Levine, M., Rassamakin, Y.,Kislenko, A. and Tatarintseva, N. (eds.), Lateprehistoric exploitation of the Eurasian steppe.McDonald Institute Monographs, Cambridge, 5-59.Levine, M., Rassamakin, Y., Kislenko, A. and Tatarintseva,N. (eds.) 1999. Late prehistoric exploitation of theEurasian steppe. McDonald Institute Monographs,Cambridge.Lichardus, J. and Fol, M. (Hrsg.) 1988. Macht, Herrschaftund Gold. Das Gräberfeld von Varna (Bulgaria) unddie Anfänge einer neuen europäischen civilisation.Saarbrücken.Marcsik, A: 1979. The anthropological material of the Pitgravekurgans in Hungary. In: Ecsedy, I. (ed), Thepeoples of the pit-grave kurgans in Eastern-Hungary.Fontes Archaeologici Hungariae, , 87-98., BudapestMarosi, S. and Somogyi, S. (eds.) 1990. Magyarországkistájainak katasztere. [The Cadaster of Hungary’sgeographical microregions] Budapest, MTAFöldrajztudományi Kutatóintézet. (in Hungarian)Masanov, N.E. 2000. Specific traits of traditional nomadicsociety of the Kazakhs. In Shishlina 2000, 188-193.Medović, P. 1987. Resultate der Untersuchung auf dreiGrabhügeln in der Gemarkung des Dorfes Perles immittleren Banat. In: Srejović, D. and Tasić, N. (eds.),Hügelbestattungen in der Karpaten-Donau-BalkanZone während der äneolithischen Periode.Internationales Symposium Donji Milanovac 1985.Beograd. 77-82.Merpert, N.J., Morgunova, N.L., Tureckij, M.A. andSzalugina, N.P. 2006. Problemi izucsenijá jámnojkulturno-isztoricseszkoj oblasztyi. OrenburgszkijGoszudársztvennij Pedagogicsezskij Universzityet,Orenburg.Molnár, M., Joó, K., Barczi, A., Szántó, Zs., Futó, I., Palcsu,L. and Rinyu, L. 2004. Dating of total soil organicmatter used in kurgan studies. Radiocarbon 46, 413.Morgunova, N.L. 2000. Bolsoj Bolgyirevszkij kurgan.–Thebig Boldyrevo barrow. Arheologicseszkije pamjátnyikiOrenburzsjá IV, 55-62.Morgunova, N.L. 2004. Arheologija Orenburzsjá. Orenburg.Morgunova, N.L., Golyeva, A. A., Krajeva, P. A.,Meserjákov, D.B., Tureckij, M.A., Haljápin, M.V. andKhokhlova, O.S. 2003. Sumaevszkije kurgáni.Orenburg.Morgunova, N.L., Krajeva, L.A. and Matjusko, I.V. 2005.Kurgannij mogulnyik Mu-Sztajevo V.Arheologicseszkije pamjátnyiki Orenburzsjá VII, 5-69.MRT 6: Ecsedy, I., Kovács, L., Maráz, B. and Torma, I.1982. Békés megye régészeti topográfiája. A szeghalmijárás. [The archaeological topographic works of Békéscounty: Szeghalom environment] IV/1. kötet, Budapest.(in Hungarian)MRT 8: Jankovich, B. D., Makkay, J. and Szőke, B. M.Békés megyer régészeti topográfiája. A szarvasi járás.[The archaeological topographic works of Békéscounty: Szarvas environment] 1989. IV/2. kötet,Budapest. (in Hungarian)MRT 10: Jankovich, B. D., Medgyesi, P., Nikolin, E.,Szatmári, I. and Torma, I. 1998. Békés megye régészetitopográfiája. Békés és Békéscsaba környéke. [Thearchaeological topographic works of Békés county:environment of Békés and Békéscsaba] IV/3. kötet,Budapest. (in Hungarian)Müller, J. 1999. Zur Radiokarbondatierung des Jung- bisEndneolithikums und der Frühbronzezeit im Mittelelbe-Saale-Gebiet (4100–1500 v. Chr.). BRGK 80, 31–90.M. Virág, Zs. 2004. Településtörténeti és kronológiaikutatások a Dunántúlon és Budapest környékén aközépső rézkor első felében. [Chronological and historicalresearches in the first half of Middle Copper Age, atTransdanubia and environment of Budapest] Ph.D.dissertation, ELTE-RI, Budapest, manuscript. (inHungarian)Németi, I. 1996. Câteva consideraţii privind descoperirilefunerare din epoca bronzului din nord-vestul Românei.Studii şi comunicări XIII, 27-55, Satu Mare.Orosz, E. 1904. Egy őskori kőbálvány Szamosújvárról.[Prehistorical stone idol from Szamosújvár]Archaeológiai Értesítő XXIV, 405-406. (in Hungarian)Paládi-Kovács, A. 2004. A rét- és legelőgazdálkodásvisszaszorulása az Alföldön (XIX-XX. század). In:Novák, L.F. (ed.), Az Alföld gazdálkodása.Állattenyésztés. [Traditional rural economy in the GreatHungarian Plain. Animal keeping] Arany JánosMúzeum Közleményei X, Nagykőrös, 81-91. (inHungarian)Panaoyotov, I. 1989. Jámnata kultúra v bulgarskite zemi.Razkopki i proucsvanyijá XXI.P. Fischl, K., Kiss, V. abd Kulcsár, G. 2001. Ahordozható tűzhelyek használata a Kárpátmedencében.[The use of portable stoves in theCarpathian Basin] I. MΩMOΣ I, 163-193. (inHungarian)Primas, M. 1996. Velika Gruda I. Hügelgräber des frühen 3.Jahrtausends v.Chr. im Adriagebiet.–Velika Gruda,Mala Gruda und ihr Kontext. UPA Band 32, Bonn.Raczky, P., Kovács, T. and Anders, A. (eds.) 1997. Utak amúltba. Az M3-as autópálya régészeti leletmentései.[Paths into the Past. Rescue excavations on the M3motorway] Budapest, Magyar Nemzeti Múzem-EötvösLóránd Tudományegyetem Régészettudományi Intézet.(in Hungarian)Rassamakin, Y.Y. 1999. The Eneolithic of the Black SeaSteppe: Dynamics of Cultural and EconomicDevelopment 4500-2300 BC. In: Levine, M.,Rassamakin, Y., Kislenko, A., Tatarintseva, N. (eds.),Late prehistoric exploitation of the Eurasian steppe.McDonald Institute Monographs, Cambridge, 59-183.Rassamakin, Y.Y. 2004. Die Nordpontische Steppe in derKupferzeit. Gräber aus der Mitte des 5. Jts. bis Endedes 4. Jts. v.Chr. Teil I-II. Archäologie in Eurasien 17,Mainz, Verlag Philipp von Zabern.Rassamakin, Y.Y. and Nikolova, A.V. 2008. CarpathianImports in the Graves of the Yamnaya Culture on theLower Dnieper. Some Problems of Chronology andConnections in the Black Sea Steppes during the EarlyBronze Age. In: Biehl, P.F. and Rassamakin, Y.Y.(eds.), Import and Imitation in Archaeology. Schriftendes Zentrum für Archäologie und Kulturgeschichte desSchwarzmeerraumes. Beier and BeranLangenweißbach, 51-89.Roman, P. 1976. Cultura Coţofeni. Bucureşti.101

T. HORVÁTHRoman, P. and Németi, I. 1978. Cultura Baden în România.Bucureşti.Roman, P.I., Dodd-Opriţescu, A. and János, D. 1992. Beiträgezur Problematik der Schnuverzierten KeramikSüdosteuropas. Heidelberger Akademia derWissenschaften International InterakademischeKommission für die Erforschung der Vorgescgichte desBalkans. Monographien Bd III, Mainz and Rhein, VergagPhilipp von Zabern.Roska, M. 1914. A zsinegdíszes agyagművesség nyomaiMagyarországon. [Restes du ceramique cordée enHongrie] Dolgozatok 5, 418-420. (in Hungarian)Ruttkay, E. 2002. Das endneolitische Hügelgrab von Neusiedlam See, Burgenland. Budapest Régiségei XXXVI, 145-171.Ruttkay, E. 2003. Das endneolitische Hügelgrab von Neusiedlam See, Burgenland. Zweite Vorlage–II.Kulturgeschichtliche Aspekte des Zentralgrabes. In:Jerem, E. and Raczky, P. (eds.), Morgenrot der Kulturen.Frühe Etappen der Menschheitsgeschichte in Mittel- undSüdosteuropa. Festschrift für Nándor Kalicz zum 75.Geburstag. Archaeolingua, Budapest, 445-475.Samashev, Z. andMylnikov, V. 2008. Woodworking ofancient cattle-breeders of Kazakh Altai. A. Kh. MargulanInstitute of Archaeology.Saposnikova, O.G., Rassamakin, Y.Y., Jevdokimov, G.L.,Kubisev, A.I. and Otrosenko, V.V. 1988. Novienamjátnyiki kulturi sztyepnoj zoni ukrajni. Kiev,Akademija nauk ukrainskoj Sz.Sz.R. Institut arheologii.Shishlina, N. (ed.) 2000. Szezonnij ekonomicseszkij ciklhaszelenyija szevero-zapadnovo prikaszpija brohnzovomveke.–Seasonality studies of the Bronze Age NorthwestCaspian Steppe. Moscow, Trudi GocudarsztvennovoIsztoricseszkovo muzeja, Vípuszk 120.Srejović, D. and Tasić, N. (Hrsg.) 1987. Hügelbestattung inder Karpaten-Donau-Balkan-Zone während deräneolitischen periode. Internationale Symposium DolnjiMilanovac 1985, Beograd.Ślusarska, K. 2006. Funeral rites of the Catacombcommunity: 2800-1900 BC. Ritual, thanatology andgeographical origins. Baltic-Pontic Studies Vol. 13.Stadler, P. 2002. 14 C-Datierung der beiden Bestattungen ausdem Hügelgrab von Neusiedl am See, Bgld. BudapestRégiségei XXXVI, 171-175.Szalontai, Cs. (ed.) 2003. Úton-útfélen. Múzeumi kutatások azM5 autópálya nyomvonalán. [On the Road! Musemresearch along the intended route of the M5 motorway]Szeged, Móra Ferenc Múzeum. (in Hungarian)Székely, Zs. 2002. A gömbamfórás kultúra emléke Délkelet-Erdélyben. [The GAC in SE-Transylvania] Ősrégészetilevelek 4, 40-45. (in Hungarian)Szmyt, M. 1999. Between West and East. People of theGlobular Amphora Culture in Eastern Europe: 2950-2350 BC. Baltic-Pontic Studies, Vol. 8.Tasić, N. 1995. Eneolithic cultures of Central and WestBalkans. Belgrade, Institute for Balkan Studies.Telegin D.J. 1992. Zum Ursprung der Schnurverzierung.Praehistorica XX, 333-339.Telegin, Y. and Mallory, J.P. 1995. Statue-mehirs of the NorthPontic Region. Notizie Archeologische Bergomensi 3,319-332.Telegin, D.J., Pustovalov, S.Z. and Kovalyukh, N.N. 2003.Relative and absolute chronology of Yamnaya andCatacomb monuments. The issue of co-existence. Baltic-Pontic Studies, Vol. 12, 132-185.Tončeva, G. 1981. Monuments scuplturaux eu Bulgarie duNord-Est de l’age du bronze. Studia Praehistorica 5-6,129-145.Tóth, A. 2004. A kunhalom-kérdésről. [About the kurgans]In: Tóth, A. (ed.), A kunhalmokról–más szemmel, 7-12.Kisújszállás-Debrecen, Alföldkutatásért Alapítvány,Hortobágyi Nemzeti Park Igazgatósága. (in Hungarian)Tóth, A. and Tóth, Cs. 2004. A kunhalom-program általánostapasztalatai. [The general observations of Kurganprogram]In: Tóth, A. (ed.), A kunhalmokról–másszemmel, 171-188. Kisújszállás-Debrecen,Alföldkutatásért Alapítvány, Hortobágyi Nemzeti ParkIgazgatósága. (in Hungarian)Tsutskin, E.V. and Shishlina, N.I. (eds.) 2001. MogilnyikiMu-Saret v Kalmükii: kompleksznoje isszledovanyie.Moszkva, Eliszta.Videiko, M.Y. 2000. Studying western context of the TripolyeCulture: history and some perspectives. In Baltic-PonticStudies Vol. 9, 7-69.Zimmermann, T. 2003. Zwischen Karpaten und Kaukasus–Anmerkungen zu einer ungewöhnlichen Kupferklingeaus Wien-Essling. Arch. Korrbl. 33, 469–477.Zinkovszkij, K.V. and Petrenko, V.G. 197. Pogrebenija sokhroi v Usatovskih moglinikakh. SovietskajaArheologija 4, 24-39.K. Zoffmann, Zs. 2006. Anthropological finds of the pit-graveculture from the Sárrétudvari-Őrhalom site.Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae 2006, 51-58.Zoltai, L. 1906. Jelentések halmok megásásáról. [Excavationreports from kurgans] Debrecen város múzeumának évijelentései LXXIII, 1906-1928, 36-48. (in Hungarian)Zoltai, L. 1911. A Hortobágy. A legnagyobb magyar pusztaismertető leírása térképpel és 23 szövegképpel.[Hortobágy. The greatest hungarian pusta] Debrecen. (inHungarian)Zoltai, L. 1914. Jelentés Debreczen szabad királyi városmúzeumának 1913.-ik évi működéséről és állapotáról.[Reports from the Museum of Debrecen at 1913] 1914,Debrecen. (in Hungarian)Zoltai, L. 1924. Jelentések Debrecen szabad királyi városmúzeumának és közművelődési osztályának 1922. és1923. évi működéséről és állapotáról. [Reports from theMuseum of Debrecen at 1922 and 1923] 1924, Debrecen.(in Hungarian)Zoltai, L. 1928. Jelentések Debrecen szabad királyi városmúzeumának és közművelődési osztályának 1927. éviműködéséről és állapotáról. [Reports from the Museumof Debrecen at 1927] 1928, Debrecen. (in Hungarian)Zoltai, L. 1935. Debrecen vizei. Folyók, folyások, völgyek,erek, fokok.–Tavak, fertők, fenekek, laposok, mocsarak,rétek, tiszták. Árkok, csatornák, gátak, kutak. [The watersof Debrecen] Debrecen. (in Hungarian)Zoltai, L. 1938. Debreceni halmok, hegyek, egyébmesterséges emelkedések ú.m.: laponyagok, telkek,űlések, dombok, gerendek, és hátak a város határában,valamint külső birtokain. [The mounds of Debrecen]Debrecen. (in Hungarian)102

Hajdtinanas- Tedej- Lyukas-halom- An interdisciplinary survey ofa typical km gan from the Great Hungarian PlainregIOn: a case snldy (The revision of the kmgans from the territory of Htmgary)Fig. 1. TIle Hajdtmanas-Tedej- Lyukas-halom (mOlmd) site on a Google map1.+----_ .....,----_ ....,-------------, , '----2.103

T. HORVAlHFig. 2. TIle excavation campaign at 2004. 1. the beginnings: the destroyed 1ll00md body. 2. the west-east section after thecierullng. 3. the layers of the mound. 4. Early Neolithic (?) remains on the palaeosoil. 5. COlofen ill. and EBApotsherds from Layer 6.6. TIle west-east section with the place of sampling104

Hajdlimimis- Tedej- Lyukas-halom-An interdisciplinary survey ofa typical kurgan from the Great Hungarian PlainregIOn: a case SnJdy (TIle revision of the kurgans from the telTitory of Hungary)Fig. 3. The geodesic sunrey of the mOllnd in 2004 and 2009 by Archeodata Ltd.--,p=____-~-.._ ...___..__ -- __'"_' ..------- ___ 00. ________ = __ -,---------p--,._,-...------- ---,_ .._-- -..... ___ ..... _____ _ ._M_I :;.- ~-.... ______-- ...-........---I... -,----~--- "" --------~o"" .-2.3. 4.,. 6.105

T. HORVAlHFig. 4. TIle nanll1li and antropogenic layers and features of the IllOlUld, 2004.106

Hajdtinanas-Tedej-Lyukas-halom-An interdisciplinary survey ofa typical kurgan from the Great HtUlgarian PlainregIOn: a case snldy (TIle revision of the kurgans from the territory of Hungary)Fig. 5. Archaeological fUlds . 1-3. uncharacteristic EBA potsherds. 2. COlofen III. potsherds from Layer 6, 2004. 4-5.Early Bronze Age everted rim with organic residue, 2009.1. 2.3.,~, ·=::11·=·~"m- -=--4. 5.107

T. HORVAruFig. 6. Feanlre No.2. -Grave No. 1.1. the grave chamber; 2. the lnullall skeleton; 3. the black and red striped mat afOlmd thehead; 4. the grave chamber after removing the skeleton: the mat level: 5. the grave chamber after the excavated mal.108

Hajdtinanas-Tedej-Lyukas-halom-An interdisciplinary survey ofa typical kmgan from the Great Hungarian PlainregIOn: a case snldy (The revision of the kmgans from the territory of Htmgary)Fig. 7. 1-2. Feanrre 2. - Grave No. 1. when it appeared, 3. the patch of the grave; 4. TIle cross-section of the grave;5. grolUld plan ofFeatme No. 1( with the place of the fonner grave)eros, _ lion- " "--ero .. S

T. HORVAlliFig. 8.1. TIle so called sack in the southern sondage: 2-4. excavating ofFeattlfe No.1.: 5-6. palaeosoil cross-section in2009 with palaeo C- and B/C-horizon and the botanical horizon on palaeo A-horizon.110

Hajdtinanas-Tedej-Lyukas-halom-An interdisciplinary survey ofa typical kmgan from the Great Hungarian PlainregIOn: a case snldy (The revision of the kmgans from the territory of Htmgary)Fig. 9.1. Cross-section of Feanrre 2 .. 2. The 1. grave on the surface of the palaeo A-horizon, 3-5. Phases of theexcavation of the grave_.-­ •,line of cross-section "t D / /,,('-------III

T. HORVAruFig. 10. 1-2: the painted skull of Devava.nya-Csordajaras k"l.lfgan No. 2. (photo: Gy. Palfi); 3: painted skull ofDevavinya, Grave No.3. (photo: Gy. Palfi);l27 4: ground plan ofDevavanya, Grave No. 2. (after Ecsedy 1979, Figure29.); 5:

Hajdtinanas- Tedej- Lyukas-halom- An interdisciplinary survey ofa typical kmgan from the Great Hungarian PlainregIOn: a case snldy (The revision of the kmgans from the territory of Htmgary)Fig. II. Babnaziijvaros- Kettoshalom, excavation of Gyula Gazdapusztai in 1964--=-=cc;;;r")!;;Z:;> ;:--ol Sth Jul y 1%4. Gyula Galdapu,"uicompac1ed. gray;,b black layerinlillingr,l>: graw"'"'I""-'c'

T. HORVAlliFig. 12. Map ofnOlth-east Hllllgary with the tenitOlY of Pit-Grave culnlfe, and the main sites cited in the text.The frame represents the focused tellltory of the rutic1e.MAGYARORSzAGDOMBORZATA ~s VIZEI'"1:1 250000• • •114

• 0••'." r -o"O~-• ,0,t1 ,11jJa 'I•ij 0 I JI"III00I,00000•00II0...00II11 b JIo ,0 00 0I,0!jItll o joII11 ?o '!.,0"0 0,I00~Q o~o 0 ~o~o ..IDI t0·•• • o .' oo}~o o 0" • .. ~ Be> ". , .~ a-!= "0" 01:0 ••:"''':1 't ~oi : l ••0o • •:Lo""o,,\ooo"~oo "f•• 0•1• •"I I i)" '• , !'I• a. ' -1'II "•,•,I! 'I •I! I,•I I, i1 j ,I ,:I (,,,.1IiI .,I' ,! , ,'u• , •I•I.)•I( 00Il !•• !•" !.rI,J•I1 I 0h',100,,o!1,0•111I , 00 ~I , ,I •,fI ,'t., -\1 I I Ib0i ,I,I 01iI0o,,/I f" •••~~~ ____ l __ I _ • o 'j'I o '.Inlj/lllI ; !II! I'H I .• ~ I 1"".. ."1'1'1'i1 II, b I1I•I1 I'1 ill.o ...r~l0l¥,! .'1, I1 .I ,I 1 ''J.J"',1,0n .... j j Ii', i L ,.,,. 'i"II'H, i' Ir, I1'\, ,.,'101.;;1,. I I• ". )',tool"I I" J I ,' I r j. .". • ~.• '~' I.. o . '0Ii' . ! I i'" i,, 0 cIj ;,-;.. 1.°, ft §O_fI-.~oAJ 1. ,. La... 10 .., "l~~' ,Il J""Ifl" ..... oI 't"J",L,,,,"lL...J.~_ ~ r.,,--~'"o•,

-ii- .1~. I, I. \ J ·1I.IrrI

Hajdtinanas-Tedej-Lyukas-halom-An interdisciplinary survey ofa typical kmgan from the Great Hungarian PlainregIOn: a case snldy (The revision of the kmgans from the territory of Htmgary)Fig. 15. Enviromneuts ofDevavanya on the 1st and llnd Ordinance 811lv ey maps and the map of Matyas Huszar.oI",..i/iL_-2_ I •~!\,I-­ •.~';:""':'.2.. __ ... _-o-0--0"h._....._-... _-.­'to_a-oo-.---..00 __ _•-­-0 ....._oa ..---___ o.-0..".,_...-o ..... -.~--',-/•. ..9_\'i.,i2.0-_ -_

T. HORVAlliFig. 16. Ohat- Dunahalom: potsherds, Plate 1.1.5.o11 8

Hajdtinanas- Tedej- Lyukas-halom-An interdisciplinary survey ofa typical kurgan from the Great HtUlgarian PlainregIOn: a case snldy (TIle revision of the kurgans from the territory of Hungary)Fig. 17. Ohat- Dunahalom: potsherds, Plate 2.I.2.3. 4.o~II==:JIII[==JI~5'm119

T. HORVAlHFig. 18. KtilsO-Ohat, Baden-Viss potsherds, Plate 1.I.---oScm5. 6.120

Hajdiulil.nas- Tedej- Lyukas-halom- An interdisciplimu:y survey ofa typical kmgan from the Great Hungarian Plainregion: a case study (The revision of the kmgans from the territory of Hlmgary)Fig. 19. KiUsO-Ohat Badell-Viss potsherds, Plate 2.2.5. 6. 7.)4.8. 9.)---0 Scm10. 11.121

T. HORVAlliFig. 20. Steles from H1Ulgary: 1. Budapest-Kaposztasmegyer- Farkaserd6 (after EndrOdi 2004. Figure 57.),2. Mez6esat-H6resogos (after Kaliez 1999), 3. Szamost"ijv

Hajdtinanas- Tedej- Lyukas-halom- An interdisciplinary survey ofa typical kmgan from the Great Hungarian PlainregIOn: a case snldy (The revision of the kmgans from the territory of Htmgary)Fig. 21. Hortobagy- Halaszlaponyag: potsherdsI. 2.,}3. 4.o~l[==lIl1==JlII\S'm123

T. H ORVAlHFig . 22. Debrecen-T6c6: potsherdsJI. 2.-I I3. 4.5.o ---Scm124

Hajdiulil.nas- Tedej- Lyukas-halom- An interdisciplimu:y survey ofa typical kurgan from the Great H1Ulgarian Plainregion: a case study (TIle revision of the kurgans from the territory of Hllllgary)Fig. 23 . The map of Baden culture in HllllgaryKey: dot: Boleraz; pin: Baden; triangle : Boleraz-Baden; square: from Proloboleraz till KostolacIBaden IV""~•,• •• , "" ...•, •"...• , ,"~, ,, • , ",,•~ •"" :! ••• & • •z•,,•• ., ,• ,• , •'.• ••" " "• •• ••,,•'!I • •~ • • • • ,, , ,\, ."• • , ~• ",f•.',•, • ,{'. " ••,", , ,• • , , • , ,• • ,• • $• h• •, , • , ,, , • • •• • ••125

T. HORVAlliFig. 24. 1. pedestalled chalice from Orlik kurgan No.2 (after Rassamakin 1999, Figure 3.22/11.), and Balatonoszoo­Temetoi-diilo, cultural layer No. 925. Sector 47/ 10: 2-4. male mask from pits No. 1072-1096 Baiatonoszoo-Temetoidii16 and anthropological analogies_--...-,. ,-4.126

Hajdiulil.nas- Tedej-Lyukas-halom- An interdisciplimu:y survey ofa typical kmgan from the Great Hungarian Plainregion: a case study (The revision of the kmgans from the territory of Hlmgary)Fig. 25. Hajdilszoboszl6, FelsOfiUop, Devawmya: Baden potsherdsHajduszobosz16 1.3.2. Fcls6fiiJop 4.7.8. 9.Devavanya--- oScm127

T. HORVAlliFig. 26. TIle enviroilluent ofTiszavasvari at the Late Copper and Early Bronze Age I-II-III.Key: Boleniz-Baden settlement: Wienerberger-brick factOlY: Baden settlement: Koldusdomb. Muszkadomb, Kasaf6ld:Baden graves: Keresztfa. Papte1ekh

Hajdtinanas- Tedej- Lyukas-halom- An interdisciplinary survey ofa typical kmgan from the Great Hungarian Plainregion: a case snldy (The revision of the kmgans from the territory of Htmgary)". Group calibration of the sites with more radiocarbon dates was not performed as the separateness and relation of, as well as the inner periodizationof the Boleriz and Baden cultures are not reassuringly solved yet: the map shows the youngest and oldest dates - I sigma calibration - of the givensite as the possible life intervall of the site_ I wouJd like to express my gratitude to Andr:is Czeoe and RObert Patay for the acces to the yetunpublished radiocarbon dates_129

T. HORVAruFig. 28. East Central Hlmg

Hajdtinanas- Tedej- Lyukas-halom- An interdisciplinary survey ofa typical kurgan from the Great HtUlgarian Plainregion: a case snldy (TIle revision of the kurgans from the territory of Hungary)Fig. 29. Corded Ware from Hungary. 1: Tapioszentnwton, south-west from Attila-halom (drawing by Janos Jalmcs); 2:Between Buj- Baba (drawing by Gabli ella Beleznai. photo by Robert Scholtz}-Akkennen (after TeleginI992, Abb.2.5.); 3: Tarnazsadany = Tamabod (photo by Judil Kardos}-Sofievka kurgan No. 10. Grave No.1. (after Rassamakitland Nikolova 2008, PI. 1.3-4.); 4. Tiszababolna- Szilpuszta, Grave No. 7. (after Dani 2005b, Table 2/6.); 5.Bekesszentandnis (after MRT1l9 8, Table 19/8.),-- ," , ,, ,-' ,,, ,,,I.Tapioszentrnirton2. Suj-Baba; Akkermen3. Tarnabod; Sofievka4. TiszababolnaBekesszentandcis129 ArclLaeological Topography ofHlDlgaJ)' (MRT)I3l