Back to top
Download 224.08 Kb.
|
Donau-Archäologie; 30-07-2020
- Bu sahifa navigatsiya:
- Why the river Danube
- The Linear Pottery culture
- Distribution
- Regional LPC specialties of the Danube area
- Find material
- Chronological relations
- Bronz timpuriu (post-Coţofeni)
IntroductionWelcome to www.donau-archaeologie.de! With this website, we would like to give you the opportunity to gain an overview of the archaeological cultures of the Neolithic, the Copper Age and the Bronze Age in the Danube regions. Furthermore, by accessing helpful material, we would like to enable researchers working in the prehistory of Central and South-East Europe to gain access to the material and sources which are not always easy to obtain. Therefore the website is subdivided into the following main categories: Archaeological cultures: Here, you may find an alphabetic listing of short summaries about the state of research of the various cultures. Dictionary: An archaeological dictionary, containing vocabulary in Bulgarian, Czech, English, French, German, Hungarian, Romanian, Russian, Serbian (in preparation) and Slovakian. Maps: blank maps of the Danube regions. Catalogues: Various tables and lists. Links: an assorted collection of archaeologically interesting websites. We try to keep all contents of this site up to date, and we also try to integrate new contents regularly. In order to find certain information quickly, we recommend you use the text search. Just read the instructions. The site was designed not only to prove an insight for users but to provide them with ressources for their own research. The use of our material is, therefore, explicitly allowed, according to the rules which can be found in the imprint. We are glad to respond to any questions and/or suggestions.
Intensive cultural relations between Central Europe, South-East Europe and the neighboring regions can be traced back archaeologically as far as the earliest Neolithic. It is self-evident that a natural landmark the size of the Danube and its tributaries is used intensely as a route of transport and becomes a main artery for long-distance relations. And indeed the Danube takes pride of place in respect to the cultural interplay in prehistory. It functions not only as a bridge between regions it directly flows through, but works as a stepping stone for the great cultures of the Aegean, the Pontic and the Near East to Europe. Its role as a connection is even further enhanced by the natural centering of the Danube regions: The Carpathian Basin marks a junction of European prehistory due to its central position and ideal natural conditions. Consequently it works as a crucial catalyst through the medium of cultural products to Central Europe. It is impossible, therefore, to practice prehistoric archaeology in Central Europe without knowing about the regions bordering in the south-east. This was always stressed during our studies by our PhD supervisor at the University Saarbrücken, Professor Jan Lichardus, who, unfortunately, died much too early. In this spirit we, Valeska Becker, Monika Schwarz and Matthias Thomas, decided to add something to the archaeological exploration of the history of the Danube regions. This should be of high importance in times where Europe grows together, although not all borders have quite vanished.
Last changed: June 2008 The Linear Pottery culture Distribution Regional LPC specialties of the Danube area Treatment of the dead Settlements Houses Wells Enclosures Economy Find material Chronological relations References The (western) Linear Pottery culture (LPC) was named for its linear decoration on the pottery. It is the first Neolithic culture in central Europe and it is characterized by agriculture, stockbreeding, typical architecture (houses, enclosures), characteristical stone, flint and bone tools. We may state that it is one of the best-researched prehistoric cultures in all. Since finds of the LPC can be found in vast regions in central Europe (cf. Distribution), it is almost impossible to outline the complete history of research of this culture in the various countries and with many different researchers. Therefore, we summarize the history of research for the different geographical regions individually (cf. below). According to the large distribution, literature concerned with the LPC is also voluminous. In contrast to the western LPC we deal with here, there is also a so-called eastern or Alföld LPC which is distributed in the Hungarian lowland (Alföld).
Already in its oldest phase the LPC can be found in a huge area. In the east, it reaches Ukraine (Kotova 2003), in the west it can be found up to the eastern border of the Rhine, every once in a while even beyond the river. In a more developped phase we find LPC remains in Poland, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, the Czech Republic as well as in Austria, Germany, France, Belgium and the Netherlands. Regional LPC specialties of the Danube areaTransdanubia Austria
Moravia south-west Slovakia Bavaria Bade-Wurttemberg Treatment of the deadIn the LPC we find inhumations, cremations and burials of single skeletal parts. The burials can be found partly on separate cemeteries, partly within settlements and partly at “special” places (caves, enclosures). The burial pits of the dead on the cemeteries are normally oval (for this and the following cf. e. g. Nieszery 1995; Peschel 1992). The dead were laid down in a crouched position and usually oriented north-east/south-west, however, other orientations do occur. Like on many prehistoric cemeteries, children’s graves are underrepresented. It remains unclear whether they were buried not as deep as the adults so that their graves were rather subject to erosion and soil degradation, or whether they were disposed of differently. As a rule, cremations were dug in not as deep as inhumations, and usually they contain less grave goods. The “empty graves” occuring on some cemeteries which do not contain bones but vessels or vessel fragments might indicate that here the dead were buried at some point in time but were exhumated later and laid down at a different place. Inhumations and body parts can sometimes be found also within settlements (Veit 1996; Happ 1991). However, cremations have not been found in settlements up to today. It is unclear how we have to interpret these settlement burials, however, we cannot relate them to special sacrificial practices. Every once in a while burials occur within enclosures. The most famous example for this is the enclosure found at Herxheim. Burials were also found in the (filled-up) ditch of the enclosure found at Vaihingen an der Enz. Body parts were also found in some caves, e. g., in the Hohlestein close to Ederheim, in Hanseles Hohl at Fronhofen and also from the most important cave of the LPC, the Jungfernhöhle (Virgin’s Cave) close to Tiefenellern. Finally, we have to mention the Talheim common grave (Wahl/König 1988). Here, 34 individuals were excavated which have been slayed at the same point in time. They were killed predominantly while lying down; flat hatchets and adzes were used. The composition of age and sex might indicate that they were kin. Grave goods in the LPC are extraordinarily rich, concerning the material as well as morphology (Becker in prep.; Nieszery 1995; Bonnardin 2003). Remains from jewellery and costume objects can be found at four different positions of the body. At the head, in the Danube regions especially we found fresh water snails which were worn like a wreath or arranged in rows as the trimming of a piece of clothing or directly in the hair. At the back of the head, bone combs can be found, again in the Danube regions. They might have been part of some sort of hair-do (Nieszery 1995, 196-199). At the neck, remains from necklaces, i. e. pearls from various materials can be found: spondylus, stone, snail shells, human and animal teeth and their imitations as well as protula and dentalia. At the hips, V-shaped and perforated spondylus valves occur which are interpreted as a belt in general. Very rarely, instead of these we find rods made from antler or bone. Finally, we mention bracelets made from spondylus. The use of spondylus is remarkable, since it had to be imported from the Adria or the Aegean and therefore might have had a considerable value (Willms 1985; Siklósi 2004 esp. 9-24). SettlementsImportant research about LPC settlements was conducted on the Aldenhoven Platte at the Rhine. In long lasting excavations, many LPC locations were analyzed and published in various studies (cf. the locations of Langweiler 2, 3, 8 and 9 as well as Laurenzberg 7, Niedermerz 3 and 4 etc. In summary cf. e. g. Lüning 1997). Here, settlements, enclosures and a cemetery were excavated and analyzed. Such large-scale research is completely missing for the Danube regions up to today. Single settlements of the oldest LPC are rudimentary better researched (cf. the settlements of Neckenmarkt and Strögen: Lenneis/Lüning 2001; Bicske: Makkay 1987). For the younger phases of the LPC there are more excavations and publications that allow insight into the LPC way of settling in the Danube regions. HousesWe know quite a lot about how houses were built due to the many excavated settlements. According to P. J. R. Modderman (Modderman 1959 and 1970), LPC buildings can be classified into differently sized types; however, due to erosion, they are not always easy to distinguish. The standard ground-plan of an LPC house is rectangular. It is constructed using posts and different kinds of roof beams. Every once in a while, double rows of posts may occur at the outsides. As a rule, the buildings are oriented about north-west/south-east and have four naves. The single naves are subdivided by crosswise rows of posts. Often, the north-western part of the building is surrounded by a ditch at the outside. Finds of burnt wattle-and-daub give evidence as to how the walls were made. Sometimes there is evidence that the wattle-and-daub was decorated (painted decoration was found in Mannheim-Wallstadt, Mannheim-Vogelstang, Schwechat and Hurbanovo: cf. Fries-Knoblach 2009). We know nothing at all about the shape and the number of windows and doors. It is also unknown whether LPC houses had more than one storey. Since LPC houses were built purposefully at hillside situations, O. Rück states that we might have to reconstruct them with their posts wholly or partly raised; as possible reasons for this way of building houses he mentions above-average rainfall as well as windbreak, sun-exposed situation, shorter ways to the fields lying above the settlements et cetera (Rück 2004). Besides posts that we can attribute to buildings, every LPC settlement comprises different kinds of pits (for an overview with references cf. Birkenhagen 2003, e. g. 144-153). Along the north-western part of the houses, we find long pits at both sides which might have served for clay extraction when building the walls. Sometimes, we find large „pit complexes“ in the settlements whose function is unclear. Some pits might have served as storage pits. All these objects yield the majority of the LPC find material, for after their primary use they were often filled up with refuse. Special structures in this context are so-called “slit pits”. Seen on the plane, they are long and oval and may go down as far as 2 metres beneath the recent surface. In contrast to many other types of pits, there are strikingly few finds in them. Their function is still unclear; they are interpreted as being used for profane (pits used for tanning, for storing meat, traps for wild animals, pits used to couple a windbreak) or for ritual reasons. The LPC people settled in villages comprised of houses, pits, fences and palisades as well as wells and also ovens and hearths. We do not know how long a house would last. A so-called “house generation” is specified lasting about 25 years, however, LPC houses might remain standing much longer if taken care of. The well-excavated settlement of Bylany in Bohemia proved that the settlemend “moved” in a microregion (e. g. with further references: Pavlů 2000). In any case, fertile loess soils and the vicinity to rivers and lakes were preferred. WellsAfter the excavation of a LPC well in Erkelenz-Kückhoven in 1990/1991 which comprised three consecutive wooden well cases, this feature achieved attention (Brunnen 1998). Such structures give information about the carpenters’ craftsmanship and ways of construction, and their filling often yields good possibilities to conduct natural scientific analyses (botany, entomology, dendrochronology. E. g. vessels made from wood and bark, lacings made from bast et cetera were found). Basically wells without such wooden constructions resp. without preserved constructions were found in quite many settlements. EnclosuresBesides the wells, there are enclosures in the LPC. They are single or multiple circular ditch systems, partly accompanied with posts, which may also occur in other cultures. Enclosures were built starting with the oldest LPC and were still used in the youngest phases of the LPC, even further (for this and the following still pathbreaking: Kaufmann 1997). D. Kaufmann (1997) classified the enclosures according to existing or not-existing structures on the inside into three different types (”Köln-Lindenthal type”, “Darion type”, “Langweiler type”). Every once in a while, inside the enclosures we may find buildings, pits and wells, others, however, are completely empty. The function of these enclosures is unclear. For some of them we may exclude a fortificatorial use since there are many gaps in the course of the ditch and, on the other hand, profiles of the ditches prove that they were not dug off the reel but consist of single, partly overlapping pits with different profiles. Inside the ditches we may find exceptional objects. At this point we mention the most famous of all enclosures: that from Herxheim. In the ditches of this enclosure, many skeletons and body parts, sometimes still combined, sometimes without anatomical connection, and accumulations of skulls were found. Furthermore, pottery vessels and wholly preserved vessels occurred. Body parts were also found in other enclosures. In earlier times they were interpreted as evidence for war; the “Herxheim case”, however, seems to indicate rather a special treatment of the dead. EconomyBeside macroscopic remains of the common cereals (wheat, barley, emmer, wild einkorn) and peas, lenses, beans, hazelnuts, blackthorn and different types of pome as well as flax and poppy seeds (e. g. Kreuz 1990; Lüning 2000), animal bones give evidence of the nutrition. Domestic animals comprise cattle, pig, sheep, goat and dog. Game was hunted for meat but also for fur or to protect herds or crops. The spectrum of species covers aurochs, red deer, roe deer, wild boar, lynx, beaver, hare, differend birds and fish (in summary: Lüning 2000). Find materialThe LPC derives its name from the pottery which is partly decorated with incised lines. The shapes are limited: often, we find bowls and dishes, pedestalled vessels (especially in the oldest LPC), flasks and semi-spherical or three-quarter spherical bowls (”Kumpf”, “Bombe”). In the oldest phase of the LPC they usually have a flat bottom; from the second phase on rounded bottoms occur more frequently. In the oldest phase, the pottery is grogged mostly with organic material (chaff), later, people also use sand, gravel, quartz, chamotte et cetera. The canon of decoration is quite consistent in the oldest phase of the LPC. Either, there are rectilinear motifs such as meanders, triangles or squares, or else curvolinear elements, mainly spirals. Later, the so-called “music-note pottery” develops in large areas of the Danube regions: it is made up of interlaced arcs combined with round dots (”music-notes”). The youngest phase is characterized by pottery decorated in the Šárka style (cf. below) resp. in the style of the Želiezovce group. In the youngest phase of the LPC in the Danube regions, especially in the Želiezovce group, paint is used to decorate the pottery. Beside vessels, there are also various other clay objects. We mention, e. g., sieves, miniature vessels, spindle-whorls, spoons, ladles, loom and net weights, “altars” (four-footed objects whose function is unclear), clay balls, pearls and discs. Furthermore, there are anthropomorphic and zoomorphic figurines (idols), vessels and applications (Becker 2007 a; Becker 2007 b). Flint material comprises many tools and weapons, among them scrapers, retouched pieces, drills, segments, trapezes, arrow-heads, blades, inserts for sickles et cetera (these last mentioned might show traces of use (”Sichelglanz”). E. g. Gronenborn 1997 for the oldest LPC). The raw material is partly local, partly, however, it was obtained from far-distant regions. This is especially striking for the oldest LPC where we find eye-catching Transdanubian radiolarites (Szentgál, Hárskút). People also used Carpathian obsidian, chocolate-coloured flint from Poland, cherts, quartzite, milky quartz and Alpine radiolarites (ibid. 105-119). Ground stone tools comprise rubbing and grinding stones, runners, hammers, axes, hatchets and adzes (also called “shoe-last celts” due to their shape) made from sandstone, quartzite, granite and amphibolite (cf., e.g., Bicske: Makkay/Starnini/Tulok 1996). Bone and antler tools were found in almost all settlements, however, often they are analyzed not as consequently as the pottery. We may find points, bone spatulae, chisels and mattocks (Makkay/Starnini/Tulok 1996) as well as fishing hooks, polishing tools and awls (cf. Lenneis 1999). Chronological relationsEver since H. Quitta (Quitta 1960), the Starčevo culture was seen as the predecessor of the western LPC. Quitta found parallels concerning special vessel decorations and shapes in both cultures. New research conducted by E. Bánffy and others yielded evidence for a direct transitional phase between the cultures (Bánffy 2004; Kalicz/Virág/Biró 1998; Simon 2002; Sági/Törőcsik 1989). Similarities between the Starčevo culture and the LPC are also visible concerning cultic finds (Becker 2007 a; Becker 2007 b). However, the origin of the LPC is heatedly discussed like for no other early Neolithic culture. Literature dealing with this topic has grown to be quote voluminous. Basically, it is discussed whether the LPC people immigrated from south-east Europe (migrationists) or whether the autochthonic late Mesolithic population adopted a Neolithic way of life via intermediators (diffusionists) or whether we have to deal with a mix of both models. Pro and contra arguments for these models are based mainly on flint tools, sometimes also on anthropology. The discussion was reignited by a paper written by A. Tillmann in 1993 and is still continuing. Here, we mention in summary the most important authors working in this field: Tillmann 1993; Kind 1998; Gronenborn 1999; Lichardus-Itten/Lichardus 2003; Mateiciucová 2003; Scharl 2004; Prien 2005, 324-338. Finally the question of how the Neolithic spread might remain a “question of faith”. Anthropological analysis, especially the comparison of DNA, might yield new insights, however, large, significant series of investigated graves from the oldest phase of the LPC are lacking as well as late Mesolithic graves. In the oldest phase of the LPC, the pottery is very similar, even in far-distant regions. E. g., vessels found in Ukraine can be practically exchanged with vessels from the Rhine or Elbe regions, concerning shapes as well as decorations (critically, however: Lenneis 2005). Starting with the second, maybe already with the late earliest phase, the LPC splits into several regional groups which are named according to Europe’s great river systems: Danube, Elbe, Rhein, Seine, Oder and Vistula groups (Lichardus-Itten 1980, 114; Zápotocká 1986). It is a desideratum in research to clearly classify these groups according to the decoration on pottery vessels. Finally the LPC merges into different succeeding cultures. In Transdanubia follows the Sopot-Bicske phase and afterwards the Lengyel culture which we can also find in Lower Austria, Moravia, south-west Slovakia and Poland. In Bohemia and central Germany, the Stroked Pottery culture develops; in Bavaria, there is likewise the Stroked Pottery culture and then the so-called Oberlauterbach group resp. the south-east Bavarian middle Neolithic (SOB). In south-west Germany, Alsace, west Germany and finally also in southern central Germany we find the cultural complex Hinkelstein-Großgartach-Rössen. In France, the LPC is succeeded by the Villeneuve-St. Germain group, in Belgium by the Blicquy group. The oldest 14C dates for the first phase of the LPC reach back as far as 5600 cal BC (cf. the unpublished excavations in Brunn, Lower Austria). With its youngest phases, the LPC dates about 5000/4900 cal BC.
ReferencesE. Bánffy, The 6th millenium BC boundary in Western Transdanubia and its role in the Central European Neolithic transition (the Szentgyörgyvölgy-Pityerdomb settlement). Varia Arch. Hungarica XV (Budapest 2004). V. Becker, Rinder, Schweine, Mischwesen. Zoomorphe Funde der westlichen Linearbandkeramik. In: R. Gleser (Hrsg.), Zwischen Mosel und Morava - Neue Grabungen und Forschungen zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte Mitteleuropas. Saarbrücker Stud. u. Mat. Altkde 11, 2007 [a], 9-95. V. Becker, Early and middle Neolithic figurines – the migration of religious belief. Documenta Praehistorica 34, 2007 [b], 119-127. S. Bonnardin, La parure funéraire du Néolithique ancin en Bassin parisien et rhénan: matérieux, techniques, fonctions et usage social. Thèse Université de Paris I, Sorbonne-Panthéon, sous la direction de M. Lichardus-Itten (Paris 2003, unpubl.). Brunnen der Jungsteinzeit. Internationales Symposium Erkelenz 27. bis 29. Oktober 1997. Mat. Bodendenkmalpflege Rheinland 11 (Köln 1998). S. Bükk, Die Linienbandkeramik im Landshuter Raum. Untersuchungen zu Chronologie und Systematik unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Fundplatzes von Altdorf-Aich “Kleinfeld IV”, Lkr. Landshut/Niederbayern (Diss. in prep.). Z. Čižmář, Nástin relativní chronologie lineární keramiky na Moravě. Acta Musei Moraviae 83,1/2, 1998, 105-139. K. Eckerle, Bandkeramik aus dem Badischen Frankenland (Tauberbischofsheim und Messelhausen). Bad. Fundber. Sonderheft 2 (Freiburg i. Br. 1963). J. Fries-Knoblach, Vor- und frühgeschichtlicher Hüttenlehm mit Konstruktions- und Dekorationsspuren. In: J. M. Bagley/Ch. Eggl/D. Neumann/M. Schefzik (Hrsg.), Alpen, Kult und Eisenzeit. Festschrift für Amei Lang zum 65. Geburtstag. Internat. Arch. Studia Honoraria 30 (Rahden/Westf. 2009) 427-455. D. Gronenborn, Silexartefakte der ältestbandkeramischen Kultur. Univ.-Forsch. Prähist. Arch. 37 (Bonn 1997). D. Gronenborn, A Variation on a Basic Theme: The Transition to Farming in Southern Central Europe. Journal of World Prehistory 13,2, 1999, 123-210. G. Happ, Bestattungen und Menschenreste in “Häusern” und Siedlungen des steinzeitlichen Mitteleuropa. Europ. Hochschulschriften Reihe 38, Bd. 33 (Frankfurt/Main 1991). E.-M. Hillemeyer, Die Tonware der Ältesten Bandkeramik in Wang, Landkreis Freising. In: Studien zur Siedlungsarchäologie III. Univ.-Forsch. Prähist. Arch 94 (Bonn 2003). N. Kalicz, Funde der ältesten Phase der Linienbandkeramik in Südtransdanuien. Mitt. Arch. Inst. Ungar. Akad. Wissenschaften 8/9, 1978/79 (1980) 13-46 u. Taf. 1-14. N. Kalicz, Die Keszthely-Gruppe der transdanubischen (mitteleuropäischen) Linienbandkeramik im Lichte der Ausgrabungen in Kustánszeg (Westungarn). Commun. Arch. Hungariae 1991 (1993) 5-32. N. Kalicz, Figürliche Kunst und bemalte Keramik aus dem Neolithikum Westungarns (Budapest 1998). N. Kalicz/Zs. Virág/K. Biró, The northern periphery of the Early Neolithic Starčevo culture in South-Western Hungary: a case study of an excavation at Lake Balaton. Documenta Praehistorica 25, 1998, 151-187. D. Kaufmann, Zur Funktion linienbandkeramischer Erdwerke. In: K. Schmotz (Hrsg.), Vorträge des 15. Niederbayerischen Archäologentages (Deggendorf 1997) 41-87. C.-J. Kind, Ulm-Eggingen. Die Ausgrabungen 1982 bis 1985 in der bandkeramischen Siedlung und der mittelalterlichen Wüstung. Forsch. u. Ber. Vor- u. Frühgesch. Baden-Württemberg 34 (Stuttgart 1989). C.-J. Kind, Komplexe Wildbeuter und frühe Ackerbauern. Bemerkungen zur Ausbreitung der Linearbandkeramik im südlichen Mitteleuropa. Germania 76,1, 1998, 1-23. N. Kotova, Neolithization in Ukraine. BAR International Series 1109 (Oxford 2003). H.-P. Kraft, Linearbandkeramik aus dem Neckarmündungsgebiet und ihre chronologische Gliederung (Bonn 1977). A. Kreuz, Die ersten Bauern Mitteleuropas – eine archäobotanische Untersuchung zu Umwelt und Landwirtschaft der Ältesten Bandkeramik. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 23, 1990. E. Lenneis, Altneolithikum: Die Bandkeramik. In: E. Lenneis/Ch. Neugebauer-Maresch/E. Ruttkay, Jungsteinzeit im Osten Österreichs. Wissenschaftl. Schriftenreihe (St. Pölten-Wien 1999) 11-56. E. Lenneis, Nachweise von Keszthely-Keramik in Österreich. In: E. Jerem/P. Raczky (Hrsg.), Morgenrot der Kulturen. Frühe Etappen der Menschheitsgeschichte in Mittel- und Südosteuropa. Festschrift für N. Kalicz zum 75. Geburtstag (Budapest 2003) 207-222. E. Lenneis, Die “Einheitlichkeit” der frühen Bandkeramik – Forschungsstand oder Realität? In: J. Lüning/Ch. Frirdich/A. Zimmermann (Hrsg.), Die Bandkeramik im 21. Jahrhundert. Symposium in der Abteil Brauweiler bei Köln vom 16.9-19.9.2002. Internat. Arch. 7 (Rahden/Westf. 2005) 75-79. E. Lenneis/J. Lüning, Die altbandkeramischen Siedlungen von Neckenmarkt und Strögen. Universitätsforsch. Prähist. Arch. 82 (Bonn 2001). M. Lichardus-Itten, Die Gräberfelder der Großgartacher Gruppe im Elsaß. Saarbrücker Beitr. Altkde. 25 (Bonn 1980). M. Lichardus-Itten/J. Lichardus, Strukturelle Grundlagen zum Verständnis der Neolithisierungsprozesse in Südost- und Mitteleuropa. In: E. Jerem/P. Raczky (Hrsg.), Morgenrot der Kulturen. Frühe Etappen der Menschheitsgeschichte in Mittel- und Südosteuropa. Festschrift für N. Kalicz zum 75. Geburtstag (Budapest 2003) 61-82. J. Lüning (Hrsg.), Studien zur neolithischen Besiedlung der Aldenhovener Platte und ihrer Umgebung. Rhein. Ausgr. 43 (Köln 1997). R. Maier, Die jüngere Steinzeit in Bayern. Jahresber. Bayer. Bodendenkmalpfl. 5, 1964 (1965) 9-197. J. Makkay, Excavations at Bicske. I. The Early Neolithic – the earliest linear band ceramic. Alba Regia 16, 1978, 9-60. J. Makkay/E. Starnini/M. Tulok, Excavations at Bicske-Galagonyás (Part III). The Notenkopf and Sopot-Bicske Cultural Phases. Societá per la Preistoria e protostoria della regione Friuli – Venezia Giulia, Quaderno 6 (Trieste 1996). I. Mateiciucová, Mesolithische Traditionen und der Ursprung der Linearbandkeramik. Arch. Inf. 26,2, 2003, 299-320. P. J. R. Modderman, Die bandkeramische Siedlung von Sittard. Palaeohistoria 6/7, 1958/59, 33-120. P. J. R. Modderman, Linearbandkeramik aus Elsloo und Stein. Nederlandse Oudheden III (’S-Gravenhage 1970). P. J. R. Modderman, Die neolithische Besiedlung bei Hienheim, Ldkr. Kelheim. II. Die Ausgrabungen am Weinberg 1971 bis 1974. III. Die Ausgrabungen im Fuchsloch 1975. IV. Landschaft und Besiedlung des Hienheimer Lössgebietes (Kallmünz/Opf. 1986). A. Neth, Eine Siedlung der frühen Bandkeramik in Gerlingen, Kreis Ludwigsburg. Forsch. u. Ber. zur Vor- und Frühgesch. in Baden-Württemberg 79 (Stuttgart 1999). N. Nieszery, Linearbandkeramische Gräberfelder in Bayern. Internat. Arch. 16 (Rahden/Westf. 1995). I. Pavlů, Life on a Neolithic Site. Bylany – Situational Analysis of Artefacts (Prag 2000). J. Pavúk, Chronologie der Želiezovce-Gruppe. Slovenská Arch. 17,2, 1969, 269-368. J. Pavúk, Ältere Linearkeramik in der Slowakei. Slovenská Arch. 28,1, 1980, 7-90. J. Pavúk, Frühneolithische Kulturen auf dem Zentralbalkan und der Beginn des Neolithikums in Mitteleuropa. In: R. G. Cremonesi/J. Guilaine/J. L’ Helgouac’h (eds.), The Neolithic in the Near East and Europe. XIII. Congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences 8.-14. September 1996 (Forlì 1996) 39-44. J. Pechtl, Stephansposching und sein Umfeld – Studien zum Altneolithikum im bayerischen Donauraum (Diss. in prep.). Ch. Peschel, Regel und Ausnahme – Linearbandkeramische Bestattungssitten in Deutschland und angrenzenden Gebieten, unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Sonderbestattungen. Internat. Arch. 9 (Buch am Erlbach 1992). R. Prien, Archäologie und Migration. Vergleichende Studien zur archäologischen Nachweisbarkeit von Wanderungsbewegungen. Universitätsforsch. Prähist. Arch. 120 (Bonn 2005). K. Reinecke, Die Linearbandkeramik in Niederbayern. In: Beiträge zur Geschichte Niederbayerns während der Jungsteinzeit I. Beilage zum Amtlichen Schul-Anzeiger für den Regierungsbezirk Niederbayern (Landshut 1978) 4-20. O. Rück, Zur Lage bandkeramischer Siedlungsplätze West- und Süddeutschlands. Überlegungen zum Hausbau. Arch. Korrbl. 34,3, 2004, 309-319. K. Sági/Z. Törőcsik, A Dunántúli Vonaldíszes Kerámia “Tapolcai csoportja” (Előzetes jelentés). Tapolcai Városi Múz. Közl. 1, 1989, 29-129. S. Scharl, Die Neolithisierung Europas. Ausgewählte Modelle und Hypothesen (Rahden/Westf. 2004). Zs. Siklósi, Prestige goods in the Neolithic of the Carpathian Basin. Material Manifestations of social differentiation. Acta Arch. Acad. Scien. Hungaricae 55,1/2, 2004, 1-62. K. Simon, Ein neuer Fundort der Starčevo-Kultur bei Gellénháza (Kom. Zala, Ungarn) und seine südlichen Beziehungen. In: F. Draşovean (ed.), The Vinča Culture, its Role and Cultural Connections. International Symposium Timişoara, Romania, October 1995 (Timişoara 1996) 59-92. K. Simon, Das Fundmaterial der frühesten Phase der transdanubischen Linienbandkeramik auf dem Fundort Zalaegerszeg-Andráshida, Gébárti-Tó, Arbeitsplatz III. Antaeus 25, 2002, 189-203. H.-Ch. Strien, Untersuchungen zur Bandkeramik in Württemberg. Universitätsforsch. Prähist. Arch. 69 (Bonn 2000). R. Tichý, K nejstarší volutové keramice na Moravě. Pam. Arch. 51,2, 1960, 415-441. R. Tichý, Osídleni s volutovou keramikou na Moravě. Pam. Arch. 53,2, 1962, 245-305. A. Tillmann, Kontinuität oder Diskontinuität? Zur Frage einer bandkeramischen Landnahme im südlichen Mitteleuropa. Arch. Inf. 16,2, 1993, 157-187. U. Veit, Studien zum Problem der Siedlungsbestattung im europäischen Neolithikum. Tübinger Schriften Ur- und Frühgesch. Arch. 1 (Münster/New York 1996). J. Wahl/H. G. König, Anthropologisch-traumatologische Untersuchung der menschlichen Skelettreste aus dem bandkeramischen Massengrab bei Thalheim, Kr. Heilbronn. Fundber. Baden-Württemberg 12, 1987 (1988) 65ff. Ch. Willms, Neolithischer Spondylusschmuck. Hundert Jahre Forschung. Germania 63,2, 1985, 331-344. M. Zápotocká, Lengyel und die Kulturgruppen mit Stichverzierung. In: Internationales Symposium über die Lengyel-Kultur Nové Vozokany 5.-9. November 1984 (Nitra-Wien 1986) 339-346.
IntroductionHere, we deal with all early Bronze Age cultures of Romania that follow chronologically after the Coţofeni culture and which are distributed in its place (Oltenia, Muntenia, Transylvania). The Banat is a special case, because here cultures of the Carpathian Basin and cultures of the lower Danube regions mix, as it is the case in many periods. Therefore, we will consider the finds there only partially. We will discount in most cases places in north Bulgaria, due to the fact that some of them can be connected to the cultures in Wallachia. The definition of the begin of the early Bronze Age is still not clear among Romanian researchers. It is connected with the classical dependence of some not-Romanian chronological systems. According to these, one might term even the Coţofeni culture as early Bronze Age, due to it being contemporaneous with the Ezero and Yamnaya cultures (for this early dating cf. e. g. Vulpe 2001). Petre Roman’s classification into three stages from 1986 for Transylvania and Wallachia has, however, taken root in research today. Like some other authors before him, Roman connected the begin of the early Bronze Age to the end of the Coţofeni culture, which took place, however, at different points in time in the different regions of the distribution of this culture (Roman 1986). Even though the exact dating of some groups may fluctuate, depending on the author, Roman’s classification is still a terminological basis. For Transylvania, we have to mention H. Ciugudean, who constructed – in imitation of Roman’s system – a chronological classification with three stages for the early Bronze Age (Ciugudean 1996 and 1998). During the last years, however, researchers especially in the west of Romania started to adapt more and more the Hungarian chronological classification. So, H. Ciugudean attributed the Coţofeni culture wholly to the late Neolithic and thus abstained from employing a “transitional period” (Ciugudean 2000). Likewise, Fl. Gogâltan refuses a transfer of Roman’s chronology in Banat and also disapproves of Vulpe’s chronology. His three-stage classification actually corresponds to Hungarian chronology and therefore equates the begin of the early Bronze Age with the Makó-Kosihy-Čaka culture (Gogâltan 1999a). So it cannot be synchronized with Roman’s and Ciugudean´s classifications, which is even more complicated by the fact that all authors use the same names for their stages (Bronz Timpuriu (BT) I-III resp. FBZ/EBA I-III). All cultural groups that are dealt with here – Ciomortan, Copăceni, Dâmboviţa-Muscel, Glina, Gornea-Orleşti (Gornea-Vodneac), Iernut, Jigodin, Livezile (Bedeleu), Năeni (Odaia Turcului), Schneckenberg, Şoimuş, Zăbala and Zimnicea-Mlăjet – are investigated only so-so. That is why the term “culture” should not be used. We should like to point out that the chronological fixation, revocation, renaming or fusion of existing groups as well as the formation of completely new ones is still going on, considering that some separations between groups are methodically problematic. It seems, for example, strange that some, partly even contemporaneous groups were defined alone with graves (Zimnicea-Mlăjet; Dâmboviţa-Muscel) while others were defined using almost only settlements (Glina; Gornea-Orleşti). As a prime example for the problems occurring with foggy distinctions between groups we mention Gligoreşti – “Holoame”, a place where material of four different groups Livezile, Copăceni, Şoimuş and Iernut mixes (Gogâltan 1997). These problems cannot be solved here anyway, and therefore the existing groups are accepted as the momentary state of research and are treated as such. Since the sources of most groups do not justify a usual treatment separated into settlement patterns, treatment of the dead et cetera, these groups will be summarized shortly in the following. Well researched cultures which correspond in part spacially or chronologically but for the most part belong to a different period or a different region (e. g. Yamnaya (pit grave culture/”ochre grave culture”), Monteoru, Tei but also, depending on the chronological system, Coţofeni itself), will be dealt with separately in different files. Despite the state of research, there are numerous attempts to place the groups in a wider context. Potential partners for synchronisation can be found in all late Copper Age and early Bronze Age cultures as well as in some middle Bronze Age cultures and cultural groups in south-east Europe. The material of the Wallachian and Transylvanian early Bronze Age does indeed allow this. Especially often such comparisons are accomplished with metal finds, mainly axes, whose typological classification and terminology according to Vulpe was adapted by all authors (Vulpe 1970). The three surrounding great cultural centres – the Carpathian Basin, the pontic steppe and the Aegean (and, with it, also, Anatolia) – are always mentioned as potential triggers of influence. J. Machnik pursued an interesting approach: he pointed out the similarities of all early Bronze Age cultures in south-east Europe, placed them in context with the Caucasian Kuro-Araks culture (Samšvilde-Koda type), but dismissed a connection across the steppe because of great differences of the Yamnaya cultural sphere (Machnik 1991). Indeed, some of these comparisons can be drawn at least in a closer south-east European frame, using artefacts appearing in practically all groups, such as zoomorphic figurines, wheel models (even cart models), curved knives or flint arrow heads with a concave base, but also rarer pieces and characteristics such as bone slides (Popescu 2001), “hedgehog” decoration (Băjenaru 1996), cord decoration (Bertemes 1998) or pedestalled bowls decorated on the inside (Schuster 1995a). They connect single groups among each other and lead over to the classical great Bronze Age cultures, whose origin, however, is in the dark. Its research might be hugely accomplished by quickly clearing und structuring the early Bronze Age material of the lower Danube and Transylvania. In terms of absolute chronology, the groups can only be roughly dated via external comparisons to the time between 2750 and 2100 BC. Appropriate radiocarbon dates are extremely rare (e. g. in Livezile). Băjenaru (Băjenaru 1998a) and Gogâltan (Gogâltan 1999a, pl. 1-20) give a good overview of radiocarbon dates of the late Copper Age and Bronze Age cultures of the neighbouring Carpathian Basin. Unfortunately, Reinecke’s repeatedly modified chronological system, a classification devised for south Germany according to metal finds, is still used in research for dating cultures and groups in south-east Europe defined mainly through pottery. Therefore it should be mentioned that Bz A1 corresponds roughly to BT III. GroupsCiomortan Copăceni Dâmboviţa-Muscel Glina Gornea-Orleşti Iernut Jigodin Livezile Năeni-Odaia-Turcului Schneckenberg Şoimuş Zăbala Zimnicea-Mlăjet References Download 224.08 Kb. Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: 
|