The Cultural Attribution and Dating of The Cult Vessel From Szelevény - Vadas

Tünde Horváth & Jacqueline Balen The cultural attribution and dating of the cult... Opusc.archaeol.
36, 7–25, 2012
Tünde Horváth & Jacqueline Balen
The cultural attribution and dating of the

cult vessel from Szelevény - Vadas
Izvorni znanstveni rad/ Research Center for the Humanities,

UDK / UDC 903.23(439 Szelevény)”636/637” Hungarian Academy of Sciences,
Primljeno / Received: 01.07.2012. Institute of Archaeology
Prihvaćeno / Accepted: 24.09.2012. I.Ker Uri U 49
H-1014
Budapest, Hungary
[email protected]
Arheološki muzej u Zagrebu,

Trg Nikole Šubića Zrinskog 19
HR-10000 Zagreb
[email protected]
In this paper, a new, more acceptable dating in the Late study focuses on the depiction of the environment shaped
Copper Age/Early Bronze Age period for the rectangular by communities, a new element of the Late Copper Age
vessel decorated with ritual scenes from Szelevény is pro- world reflected by a number of similar, contemporary
posed. New dating is based on matching finds recovered finds.
from the Kostolac layer of the Gomolava tell settlement
and the open settlement at Ðakovo–Franjevac. This date
is supported by the tempering agent and the decoration Key words:
made using the Furchenstich technique, as well as by Rectangular vessel versus wagon model, Kostolac cul-
the vessel’s design and rectangular form. Instead of of- ture versus pottery style, post-Baden versus conventional
fering yet another interpretation of the ritual scene, this Late Copper Age
Introduction decorative designs from Croatia, as well as their

technical execution in order to shed fresh light on
This brief study focuses on the depictions adorning the vessel’s cultural attribution and chronological
the sides of the unique Hungarian finds: Szelevény position.
vessel found during vine planting in 1893 (Kovách
1894) (Fig. 1). The rectangular vessel was identi- The vessel was presented to the Tisza-zugh Archae-
fied as a stylised wagon box in the Hungarian Pre- ological Society by Ernő Tarcsányi, an engineer; it
history (Fettich 1969) or, alternately, it had per- was later incorporated into the prehistoric collec-
haps been used as an altar or other ritual vessel tion of the Hungarian National Museum. It is now
(Rezi Kató 1998, 2001). Discussed here will be the one of the highlights of the museum’s permanent
interpretation of and the possible parallels to the exhibition.
7 
Tünde Horváth & Jacqueline Balen The cultural attribution and dating of the cult... Opusc.archaeol. 36, 7–25, 2012.
Fig. 1. View of the three sides of the Szelevény vessel (photos by András Dabasi, by the courtesy of the Hungarian National Museum), and
the drawing after Rezi Kató (Rezi Kató 2001, T. I–II: 1–2).
The present study is based on Albert Kovách’s initial symbols. “It would appear that the artefact’s func-
publication (Kovách 1894), Nándor Fettich’s article tion is indicated by the scene on the side, probably
on wagon models (Fettich 1969), Gábor Rezi Kató’s portraying a sacrificial offering. The vessel from
studies (Rezi Kató 1998, 2001), and the new excava- Szelevény was in all likelihood made for ritual pur-
tion evidences from Croatia. poses – it was a ritual vessel made for a specific oc-
casion. I would even refrain from calling it a ‘vessel’
Two main theories have been proposed regarding
(Rezi Kató 2001: 124, note 15).
the vessel’s function: N. Fettich believed that it was
a wagon model depicting the wagon box, while G. The rectangular artefact is decorated with three
variants of the same scene on its exterior (the two
Rezi Kató suggested that the vessel’s rectangular
longitudinal sides are identical, this being the rea-
form reflected its ritual nature and that the depic-
son that three scenes can be distinguished despite
tions could be conceptualised as an elaborate set of
8 
Tünde Horváth & Jacqueline Balen The cultural attribution and dating of the cult... Opusc.archaeol. 36, 7–25, 2012
the vessel having four sides). Their interpretation is stab-and-drag technique used for adorning pottery,
a difficult task in itself. The scenes were apparently it only appears in the Coţofeni, Kostolac and the
created in two successive phases: the original scene Vučedol cultures. In contrast, this decorative tech-
and the subsequent additions, suggesting that the nique was not employed during the Boleráz/Baden
original composition had been changed or com- sequence and it is not identical with the rolled cord-
plemented during the vessel’s use or use-life, which impressed technique characterising the pottery of
in turn would imply that the vessel was not made the Kisapostag, the Encrusted Pottery and the so-
for one specific occasion. It must in all fairness also called Litzenkeramik cultures of the Bronze Age.
be noted that the restoration of the artefact – de- Rectangular vessels appeared in the Hungarian
scribed in detail by Rezi Kató – had damaged the Middle Copper Age Bodrogkeresztúr and Hunyadi-
surface to the extent as to make the interpretation halom cultures (Patay 2005: P. 19; doubled vessel: P.
of the portrayed scenes and the reconstruction of 22. 1–3), as well as in the Baden culture, as shown
the sequence of their creation very difficult. by finds of wagon models, pedestalled goblets and
bowls (Banner 1956: wagon model: P. CXX; pedes-
talled goblet: P. LXXXIX: 38, XCII: 16–17; bowl: P.
Technological observations LIV: 8.).
Mention must be made of the two dimensional par-
We shall first focus on a few technological traits, allels to the Szelevény vessel, the so-called house
which have been neglected by earlier studies. One models from Balatonőszöd–Temetői dűlő (Horváth
important point is that the tempering agent, namely 2010b: 100–107). On some magical object the cen-
finely crushed pottery of uniform grain size (grog) tral side was formed in similar way (Horváth 2010b:
used during the vessel’s manufacture can be clearly Abb. 14–15), as on the back side of the Szelevény
made out on the breakage surfaces. The tempering find. The upper part of the decorated back side of
agent is an important anchor for the vessel’s date the Szelevény vessel is curved, and some cutting
because this temper was used by the potters of the line is visible on the reconstruction proposed by G.
Middle and Late Copper Age (Gherdán & Horváth Rezi Kató (Rezi Kató 2001: P. II: 1–2). These marks
2009; Gherdán et al. 2010; Horváth 2010a), and thus cannot be observed on the vessel in its present con-
excludes a date in the Neolithic or the Bronze Age. dition, perhaps these were part of a mistaken resto-
Neolithic cultures tempered their wares with or- ration that was removed later.
ganic matter and shells. The ceramics of the Early
Artefacts resembling altars have been published
Bronze Age vary regarding the tempering agents:
from the Middle Copper Age tell settlement at
a limestone temper characterizes the pottery of
Ovčarovo and Ruse (Bulgaria), both of which date
the Somogyvár–Vinkovci culture in Transdanu-
to Gumelniţa–Karanovo VI culture (Todorova
bia, while another conventional Early Bronze Age
1982: Abb. 40; Gimbutas 1989: Fig. 195). The stand-
cultures (e.g. Makó, Nagyrév, Kisapostag cultures) ing altar from Ovčarovo is decorated on the front
used a little grog mixed with micaceous sand (Kre- and back sides, and its upper part rises above the
iter 2007; Gherdán 2009). middle part not unlike the roof of a house (Todor-
Another important technical trait is one of the pro- ova 1982: Abb. 40; Todorova et al. 1983: P. 90: 13).
cedures used for decoration, originally described Three similar, simple finds decorated with painting
as rolled cord-impressed decoration (Fettich 1969: were known from the site as the part of a cult-scene,
34). This was one of the strongest arguments in fa- interpreted as a calendar system (Todorova et al.
vour of a Bronze Age date. However, this argument 1983: P. VII: 89; Nikolov 1998). Comparable two di-
can be rejected: a personal examination of the ves- mensional finds came to light at Dunaszekcső–Vár-
sel revealed that the overwhelming portion of the hegy and Bátaszék (Vučedol culture, Ecsedy 1984:
decoration was made up of stabbing created using 93, P. 8, 10: 1).
vegetable fibres with a rectangular section, while
the linear patterns (such as the double chevron mo-
tif on the two longitudinal sides and the human fig- The vessel’s decoration and its
ure on the central side, the key symbols appearing parallels from the Copper Age
on the vessel) were made by first creating a “bed-
ding” with a deeply incised line and then filling it The interpretation of the scenes appearing on the
with stabbing Very few cultures used Stab-and- vessel is virtually impossible, one reason for this be-
drag/Furchenstich-like dense, evenly spaced, deep ing that the potter or potters changed their inten-
stabbed dots for decorating their ceramic wares: in tion at least twice, and thus the original meaning
addition to the Furchenstich culture named after the of the superimposed depictions have been lost, in
9 
part owing also to the restoration which destroyed cycles and thus became an important constituent of
additional details. Instead of proposing yet another simple calendars (Durman 2000, 78–83).
interpretation, we would prefer to highlight a few Other, very close parallel is from Kostolac culture
minor points.1 (Fig. 2:2). A shard of a ceramic vessel with a furrow-
Let us begin with the composition on the main, fron- incised human figure was found at site Đakovo–
tal side. It seems to us that Rezi Kató’s interpreta- Franjevac in 2007 (Balen 2011, 96, Fig. 4: 8). The
tion that the scene is framed by a simple rectangular site of Franjevac is an open-air, single layer settle-
building, perhaps a sanctuary, and that the human ment, with horizontal stratigraphy. The cultural
figure is portrayed as standing in a closed space, can layer has nowhere remained preserved and, even
be rejected. Although many details have been lost if there had been any, it was presumably destroyed
during the millennia, there is nothing to suggest that by agricultural works. A total of 1040 contexts were
the incised Y-motifs were connected with lines or documented during the investigation, consisting
that the Y-motifs can be regarded as the purlins sup- of layers (humus, plough-layer and geological lay-
porting the building (Rezi Kató 2001: 122). ers) as well as fills and cuts of pit features. Out of
Marija Gimbutas quoted the human depiction of the total number of pits the highest percentage be-
the Cucuteni–Tripolye culture as the best formal longed to features without pottery finds (223), most
parallels to the human figure appearing on the short of which were post-holes (around 1.20 m in diam-
front side, i.e. the side that can be regarded as cen- eter) or stake-holes (with a diameter between 0.40
tral (Gimbutas 1989: Fig. 373: 1–2, Fig. 378: 1–4). and 0.60 m), filled with loose, brown fills, and small
Rezi Kató regarded the figurines of the late Cucu- elongated features (channels) with daub and traces
teni–Tripolye (Usatovo) culture as possible paral- of charcoal. A total of 142 features yielded Eneolith-
lels owing to the rectangular form of the head and ic pottery of the Kostolac culture, while medieval
the emphatic modelling of the nose (Rezi Kató 2001: finds were discovered in 119 pits.
122). The fragment with human figure was found in the
It seems to us that the human figure from Szelevény pit (stratigraphic unit 51), two meters deep and
compares best with the portrayals of the Vučedol with 2.5 meters in diameter. The pit is round and
culture (Fig. 2: 1). The base fragment of a vessel dis- wider toward the bottom, which probably original-
covered at Vučedol–Vineyard Streim in 1894 bears ly served as storage space. A pit was not rich with
a depiction of a human figure with upheld hands waste material as some others from Franjevac were.
enclosed within a circle (Hoffiller 1933, T. IX:7). A total of 99 fragments of pottery were found in it,
The circle framing the human figure and the human as well as one copper awl.
figure itself (whose body was created from two tri-
angles set tip to tip, while the legs were indicated by
simple lines and the head with a dot, all elements re- The possible interpretations
sembling the ones from which the human figure on of the depiction from the Late
the Szelevény vessel was created) were made with Copper Age
a technique resembling the one used at Szelevény:
the deeply incised lines were filled with stabs. In his Finally, we would like to draw attention to another
study on this vessel fragment, Aleksandar Durman aspect of the depiction. Without entering the maze
identified the human figure with the figure outlined of earlier interpretations on the meaning of vari-
by the Orion constellation. He noted that the ves- ous sets of symbols – e.g. whether the human fig-
sel fragment may in fact have been a lid fragment ure is male or female (suffice it here to assert that
and in this case, the figure would have been more it is human), whether the impressed dots represent
prominent because its function as a decorative ele- scattered seeds or rainfall, whether the Y-motifs
ment, especially one vested with a symbolic mean- are purlins or leafy trees – what must by all means
ing, would have been lost on the vessel base or, bet- be emphasized is that the scene, as a whole, is an
ter said, would hardly have been visible. Orion be- anthropogenic portrayal of the environment. Man
ing the brightest and most prominent constellation was not simply present in this environment, but
of the winter sky, symbolised winter to prehistoric also played an active role in shaping it. Very few
man. It was excellently suited to measuring annual contemporary compositions of this type are known
from Europe.2

1
The secondary mounted Brillen-spiral on the back side can not
help in the dating, because this type of jewel or decoration on
a jewel occured from the Middle Copper Age/Früh- und Hoch-
2
A wall painting showing a schematic map of the village and
kupferzeit till the end of the Middle Bronze Age/Reinecke B-C the nearby volcano is known from Çatal Höyük, dating from a
(Matuschik 1996). much earlier period (7th–6th millennium BC).
 10 
Fig. 2. 1. Vessel with human depiction from Vučedol (drawing by Miljenka Galić, photo after Durman 2000, Fig. 45); 2. Ðakovo–Franje-
vac (drawing by Krešimir Rončević, photo after Balen 2011, 96, Fig. 4: 8).
 11 
Fig. 3. The vessel from Bronocice (after Piggott 1983, Fig. 11).
One of these is the depiction on a vessel from

Bronocice, interpreted as a ritual scene accentuated
by the presence of a wagon (Fig. 3). The scene on the
small, 10.5 cm high biconical cup recovered from a
pit of a Funnel Beaker settlement is usually inter-
preted as follows: the two zigzag lines around the
base imitate water, while the central design depicts
a causeway separated by wagons and trees flanked
by fields. The vessel is generally dated to 3637–3373
cal BC with a median of 3520 cal BC (Piggott 1983:
41; Milisauskas & Kruk 1991: 564, Fig. 3; Bakker et
al. 1999: 784).
Another is a rock engraving from Val Camonica
(Fig. 4.1.), showing the map of a village and the sur-
roundings fields and pastures (Pescarzo/Giadeghe,
Val Camonica: Pétrequin et al. 2006: Fig. 27).
Perhaps similar imagination can be seen on the clay
loom-weight of Horgen culture, from Feldmeilen
ZH Vorderfeld (Fig. 4.2): a house-line with sun,
and fields, routs, and palisade, belong to the village
(Leuzinger 2000: 170, Abb: 260).
In terms of its design concept, the vessel from
Szelevény is best matched by the three depictions
quoted above. Obviously, each was made for a dif-
ferent occasion and their designs were inspired by
different beliefs. They come from different cultures
lying at great distances from each other. Their sin-
gle shared trait is that they were most likely made
for ritual purposes and that they all portray a settle-
ment and its inhabitants, and can thus be interpret-
ed as the mental projection of a spatially well-de-
Fig. 4. 1. Depiction of fields on a rock engraving from Val Ca-
fined smaller unit. The depiction of parcelled fields
monica (Pescarzo/Giadeghe) (after Pétrequin–Pétrequin–Bailly
2006, Fig. 27); 2. Depiction of Feldmeilen ZH Vorderfeld on a clay with well-defined boundaries in all three cases is an
loom-weight (after Leuzinger 2000, Abb. 260). especially intriguing element, perhaps reflecting the
 12 
replacement of communal land with well-defined, the depiction was a find from Gomolava (Fig. 5.1).
separate and perhaps inheritable, privately owned Unfortunately, the Gomolava find is only a corner
fields. fragment, although with a larger portion of the
The single perfect analogy to the ritual artefact long wall, decorated with a double zigzag line com-
from Szelevény regarding both the vessel form and bined with stabbed dots. The triangle with open
Fig. 5. 1. The vessel from Gomolava (photos by courtesy of Jovan Koledin, Museum of Vojvodina); 2. Ðakovo–Franjevac (drawing by Kreši-
mir Rončević, photo after Balen 2011, Fig. 4: 3).
 13 
upper part is generally interpreted as a female lap been suggested (Petrović & Jovanović 2002; Balen
or womb, a simple portrayal of the Earth Goddess 2005a, 2011). Perhaps similar rectangular vessel
(Fettich 1969: 36; Rezi Kató 2001: 123). The main from the same period and culture-circles known
design was created with stabbed dots. This particu- from Dunapentele, Hungary (stray find: Patay 1938:
lar fragment matches the two longitudinal sides of 40, IV: 10-b).
the vessel from Szelevény both in terms of its form
and decoration. The short side is decorated with
stabbed dots over its entire surface. There are no The distribution and
other depictions on the fragment, suggesting that chronological position of the
it was not the main front wall, but the rear one. The so-called post-Baden Kostolac
fragment was brought to light from Layer IV, an oc- culture in Hungary and in
cupation level of the Kostolac culture (Petrović & Croatia (Map 1–2–3.)
Jovanović 2001: 270).
Another analogy for vessel type comes again from Hungary
Kostolac culture site Ðakovo–Franjevac (Fig. 5.2). It must in all fairness be noted that not one single
There are several fragments of rectangular vessels find or site of the Kostolac culture is known from
in the ceramic assemblage from Franjevac, this ves- Szelevény. The nearest sites from the Great Hungar-
sel type has a flat base and short vertical body, with ian Plain yielding Kostolac pottery lie in the Tisza-
matt or polished surface. One vessel of this type zug area, at Alattyán and Tápiószele (Bondár 1984:
stands out, with suspension loops and decorated Abb. 6: sites 6 and 54).
with furrow incision (Balen 2011: 96, cat. no. 10, Before mapping the distribution of the Kostolac cul-
Fig. 4: 3). Those suspension loops suggest that most ture, we have to re-examine the Kostolac sites and
probably it was a hanging vessel. This hanging ves- finds. First, it must be emphasized that most of the
sel was also found in a pit (SU 355 in SU 20). Strati- so-called Kostolac sites in Hungary (and perhaps
graphic unit (pit) No 20 was irregular in shape, Slovakia and Austria as well) are not independent
length 7 m, and width 5 m, a depth of up to 0.70 cm. Kostolac sites, but Baden sites with Baden and Ko-
The pit was oriented northeast–southwest. There stolac finds in one feature or Kostolac finds in Ko-
are three ovens or places where there were quite stolac features uncovered on a Baden settlement.
intense traces of burning. Ovens (SU 351,353,356) Kostolac finds are often found mixed with Baden
were slightly dug in the soil. Pit contained several finds in Baden settlement features on sites which
fills with large quantities of clay objects – pottery lack independent or genuine Kostolac features. In
fragments, everyday functional objects like biconi- a few cases, we uncovered Kostolac urn graves in a
cal and conical ceramic spindle-whorls and spoons, separate area in close proximity to a Baden settle-
but also some more object which can also be con- ment, although it could not be established whether
nected with some cult activities, like fragment of the area was part of the Baden settlement or not:
saddle-type altar and small clay axe. these were independent Kostolac features and ves-
In view of the exact stratigraphic context and secure sels, perhaps suggesting the presence of a Kostolac
cultural attribution of the virtually identical vessel community, but in every case, these find were as-
fragment from Gomolava and Ðakovo–Franjevac, it sociated with Baden settlements.
seems a reasonable suggestion to discard the attri- – List of Kostolac sites in Hungary:
bution of the Szelevény vessel to the Hunyadihalom Alattyán–Kiskert, Ároktő–Tiszadorogma, Balaton-
culture of the late Middle Copper Age and instead boglár–Berekre dűlő, Bátmonostor, Bodrogkeresz-
date it to the Transitional period between Late Cop- túr, Budakalász–Pusztatemplom, Budapest–Békás-
per Age and the Early Bronze Age, and to assign it megyer, Csongrád–Felgyő, Deszk–A, Dunabogdány,
culturally to the Kostolac culture in view of that fact Dunaszekcső–Várhegy, Hódmezővásárhely–Bod-
that the best analogies to the form and the decora- záspart/Szenti tanya/Kopáncs, Kalocsa, Kec-
tion of the Szelevény vessel are known from the so- skemét–Szikra, Keszthely–Fenékpuszta, Kiskőrös,
called post-Baden Kostolac and Vučedol cultures in Lakitelek–Szikra, Nagykanizsa–Inkey kápolna,
Croatia. The closest parallels to the Szelevény find Onga, Ordacsehi–Major, Ószentiván–Tisza-
have the same chronological and cultural position sziget/VII, Ózd–Center–Kőfej alja, Palotabozsok,
in the Kostolac culture. The similar decorative pat- Pécs–Makár/Makáralja/Vasas, Sárisáp, Szenten-
terns and techniques, as well as artefact types of dre–Pannonia telep/Papsziget, Szentes–Nagyh-
the Vučedol culture suggest that the Kostolac and egy, Szigetcsép–Tangazdaság, Szigetmonostor–
Vučedol cultures were contemporaneous and that Dunapart, Szigetszentmiklós–Üdülősor, Szurdok-
there was interaction between them, as has already püspöki–Hosszúdűlő, Tahitótfalu, Tápé–Lebő,
 14 
Üllő; Balatonőszöd–Temetői dűlő (Kostolac-like (Kulcsár 2009: 249–252). With the exception of
finds brought to light on a Boleráz–Baden settle- Lánycsók these are hilltop settlements on which
ment: Horváth 2011, 2012 in print). The western- Somogyvár–Vinkovci features/layers were docu-
most known Kostolac site is Szombathely–Bogácai mented. It is unclear whether there was any con-
ér (Ilon 2004: 46). nection between the Baden and Vučedol, or later
– List of Kostolac sites in Slovakia: Iža/Izsa, Trenčin/ the Vučedol and Somogyvár–Vinkovci features be-
Trencsén, Radzovce/Rágyóc; cause the currently available evidence is insufficient
for resolving this issue. The published radiocarbon
– List of Kostolac sites in Austria: Ossarn, Lichten-
dates from Zók–Várhegy, Nagykanizsa and perhaps
wörth;
Neusiedl am See placed the Hungarian Vučedol
(lists on the base of Banner & Kutzián 1960, Ban- sites between 2900–2500 cal BC (Bln-3309, Bln-
ner & Kutzián 1961, Bondár 1984 and Banner 1956 3310, ETH-25186, VERA-2213, Bln-1633: Della
completed with Bondár 1996, 1998; Ecsedy 1984; Casa 1995: 572; Ruttkay 2002; Forenbaher 1993:
Korek 1984; Ilon 2004; Siklósi 2004; Bácsmegi & 241), and we know some Baden radiocarbon dates
Sümegi 2010). from Transdanubia at the same time, but other sites.
The above cultural attributions may be incorrect There is need for a re-examination and re-assess-
because none of the sites have been fully excavated. ment of the above-mentioned “Kostolac” finds
Also, a final report on the features and their finds based on the published data (Map 1). This is no
is still lacking and very often only a selection of the easy task because some of the finds come from old
Kostolac and/or Baden finds from a same feature excavations without a stratigraphic context or any
were published. kind of documentation, some are lost, and some are
The finds from many of the Kostolac sites appearing simply inaccessible because the excavators do not
in the above list could equally well be attributed to permit a study of a site and its finds. In many cases,
the Baden culture: white lime incrustation filling the all we have are the publications, but often the cul-
stabbed motifs on the vessel surface (generally on tural attribution of a particular vessel is impossible
bowls) and the double horizontally incised lines on from the black and white, low resolution photos or
vessel shoulders is not exclusive to Kostolac wares drawings. Moreover, many find are not illustrated
(Stapelfeldt 1997), but also appears on Baden ves- or described.
sels (e.g. Szentendre–Pannónia dűlő: Banner 1956: Why is this so important? One important find-
P. XXXV: 2, 6, or Szentes–Nagyhegy: Banner 1956: ing of the assessment of the pottery finds from
P. LIX: 8–9, P. LX: 1–2, 9). Balatonőszöd–Temetői dűlő, the largest Late Cop-
Seemingly independent Kostolac sites have been re- per Age settlement excavated in Hungary to date,
ported from Szigetcsép–Tangazdaság and Szurdok- was that the Kostolac vessels were not genuine
püspöki–Hosszúdűlő (but they can be connected to Kostolac wares, but simply Kostolac-like (Horváth
Baden culture also, just the excavation did not proof 2011, 51–52). This raises the question of how the
it). Kostolac finds from the so-called Kostolac sites in
Independent Kostolac urn graves have been found Hungary and Slovakia should be evaluated.
on the outskirts of Baden settlement at Keszthely– The relative and absolute chronology and the typol-
Fenékpuszta and Balatonboglár–Berekre dűlő. ogy of the Balatonőszöd site indicates that Kostol-
Palotabozsok: it is uncertain whether it was a multi- ac-like finds appeared early in the Baden sequence,
ple inhumation burial on a Baden settlement yield- specifically from the IB-C Boleráz–Baden IIA tran-
ing Kostolac finds mixed with Baden finds. sition period, suggesting that Kostolac was not a
Dunaszekcső: this is hardly an independent Kostol- post-Baden culture on its whole distribution area, as
ac site because the finds came from a private collec- previously believed (e.g., Pétrequin et al. eds. 2006;
tion without any documentation whatsoever. The Horváth 2009, 112–113.), but that its development
finds can therefore be regarded as stray finds. was simultaneous with the formation of the Baden
culture from the end of the Boleráz. It is therefore
The two sites at Szigetcsép–Tangazdaság and
incorrect to describe Kostolac as a “post-Baden cul-
Szigetszentmiklós–Üdülősor appear to be associ-
ture”. The available radiocarbon dates support this
ated with Early Bronze Age Bell Beaker sites, but
observation (Table 1).
the connection between them is uncertain.
In the light of the former supposed linear Baden–
– List of Vučedol sites in Hungary (Map 3):
Kostolac–Bell Beaker sequence in Pest county (envi-
Dunaszekcső–Várhegy, Zók–Várhegy, Somogyvár– ronment of Budapest) the chronology of the Baden
Kupavárhegy, Döbrököz–Tűzköves, Gyulaj–Bán- cemetery at Budakalász–Luppa csárda is between
yahegy, Lánycsók–Égettmalom, Pécs–Nagyárpád 4510 and 4170 BP (closed around 2740 cal BC: Sik-
 15 
lósi 2009), Ecser 6–Maglód 1 Baden sites ended in at Jaruge–Gođevo Berava, at Krušćik near Pleter-
4400 BP (around 2900 BC, unpublished, excava- nica (Mihaljević 2010a) and at Vidovci–Rosulje
tion of Róbert Patay). The two available 14C date of near Požega (Mihaljević 2010b). However, none of
Szigetcsép–Tangazdaság Bell Beaker settlement are these investigations covered entire settlements, but
4030 BP and 3970 BP (2835–2470 and 2575–2410 only parts of them, so we cannot answer the ques-
cal BC, Forenbaher 1993: Bln-1638, 1639), other tion about the way the settlements of the Kostolac
unpublished dates from the Budakalász and Sziget- culture were organized, i.e. whether they were char-
szentmiklós Bell Beaker cemeteries begin 2500 BC acterized by intra-settlement specialization or the
(excavation of Róbert Patay and András Czene). activities were divided within households.
Comparing other cultures with the only Kostolac Topographic features of documented Kostolac set-
date of Szigetcsép (4350 BP, 3015–2905 cal BC, Ta- tlements have shown certain regularities in the
ble 1) we can assume partial symbiosis of the Baden selection of positions for building settlements. All
and Kostolac cultures or pottery styles in the envi- the settlements were built next to larger or smaller
ronment of Budapest, and later, with a gap, the pres- watercourses that provided certain preconditions
ence of the Bell Beaker culture in the Early Bronze for living. The density of settlements indicates that
Age 2 period. Similar situation can be observed in these were probably generally smaller settlements,
the southern shore of the Lake Balaton region in- with few larger ones that exerted control over a
stead of Bell Beaker with the Somogyvár–Vinkovci wider area. In the area of Slavonia and Syrmia the
culture (Horváth 2009, 2012 in print). settlements were erected on natural elevations near
If other Hungarian finds also turn out to be merely rivers. The most common type of site of the Kostol-
Kostolac-like rather than genuine Kostolac wares, ac culture are settlements with a single occupation
this raises the question of whether Kostolac should horizon. There are few settlements of the tell type,
be interpreted as a culture or simply as pottery style such as Vučedol and Sarvaš.
distributed in Hungary, Slovakia and Austria. In or- – List of Kostolac sites in Croatia (Map 1, 2):
der to resolve this issue, we have to study sites in Aljmaš–Podunavlje (Baden–Kostolac–Vučedol),
their entirety (both the features and their finds) in Ašikovci–Vražjak, Bobota, Bogdanovci–Voćnjak
order to determine the proportion of Baden and (Baden–Kostolac–Vučedol), Cerić–Plandište, Dalj–
Kostolac finds in one feature and on one site. Ciglana, Dalj–Lisova skela, Dalj–Savulja, Donja
Bebrina–Paljevine, Donja Vrba–Saloš, Đakovo–
Croatia Grabrovac, Đakovo–Franjevac, Erdut–Veliki Var-
od, Erdut–Panića skela, Gornja Bebrina–Okukalj,
The Croatian sites – 55 of them at present – repre-
Ilok–Tvrđava, Ilok–Božino brdo, Jaruge–Gođevo
sent in most cases occasional finds consisting of a
Berava, Kaznica–Rutak, Kešinci, Klisa–Ekonomi-
few pottery shreds, or trial trench excavations (Balen
ja, Kozarac–Ciglana, Krušćik, Kršinci–Okruglica,
2002, 2011). Excavations are made just on 16 sites,
Lovas–Gradac (Baden–Kostolac–Vučedol), Nova
and on 3 sites Kostolac finds are found mixed with
Gradiška–Slavča, Orolik–Vinogradi, Osijek–
Baden finds in Baden settlement features. System-
Retfala (Baden–Kostolac–Vučedol), Petrijevci–
atic investigations were carried out at Vučedol near
Verušed, Petrovci–Brođanka, Potočani–Mali Grad,
Vukovar, Sarvaš near Osijek, Lijeva bara in Vuko-
Razbojište–Široko jutro, Rokovci, Samatovci–Pus-
var and Slavča near Nova Gradiška. Unfortunately,
ta, Sarvaš–Gradac (Baden–Kostolac–Vučedol),
the bulk of the Kostolac artefacts from Vučedol and
Stari Jankovci–Gatina, Sotin–Fancage, Sotin–
Sarvaš come from old excavations, when the Kostol-
Srednje polje, Šarengrad–Ađinac, Šarengrad–
ac culture still had not been recognized as a separate
Bišket, Šarengrad–Gradac, Šarengrad–Kuruzeb,
manifestation, and its artefacts were ascribed to the
Šarengrad–Luketinec zapad, Šarengrad–Renovo,
Baden culture. Recent excavations at Vučedol–vine-
Tovarnik, Vidovci–Rosulje, Vinkovci–Marica,
yard Streim provided clues on economy as well as a
Vinkovci–Ervenica, Vukovar–Budžak, Vukovar–
confirmation of the Baden–Kostolac–Vučedol conti-
Lijeva bara, Vučedol–Gradac (Baden–Kostolac–
nuity. A layer of the Kostolac culture with building
Vučedol), Vučedol–vinograd Streim (Baden–Ko-
features was established there (Balen 2005b).
stolac–Vučedol), Vučedol–kukuruzište Streim
The investigations carried out as part of large in- (Baden–Kostolac–Vučedol), Zvizdan–Lovačka
frastructure works at motorway routes and also kuća (Balen 2002, 2010).
on course of the main gas pipelines resulted in the
Urn grave: Ilok.
discovery of the remains of Kostolac settlements:
at Franjevac in Đakovo (Balen 2011), at Verušed Inhumation graves: Đakovo–Franjevac, Kaznica,
in Petrijevci (Filipec et al. 2009: 47), at Kaznica Osijek (Baden or Kostolac?), Sarvaš (Baden or Kos-
near Đakovački Selci (Hršak & Pavlović 2007: 17), tolac?), Vučedol (Baden or Kostolac?).
 16 
Map 1. Spatial distribution of Kostolac or Kostolac-like sites in Austria, Slovakia and Hungary.
 17 
Map 2. Spatial distribution of Kostolac sites in Croatia (by Ana Solter).
From Croatia we have absolute dates only from the At present, there are no radiocarbon dates available
sites of Vučedol–Streim Vineyard, Đakovo–Fran- for the joint sites.
jevac (Table 1) and unpublished dates from Slavča
and Kaznica–Rutak, and they all range in the period
between 3350 and 2800 BC.3
- For the Kostolac territory-part in Serbia and Bos-
nia see: Nikolić 2000 (Map 1):
Urn graves: Đerdap, Dvorovi.
Inhumation graves: Bogojevo, Dobanovci, Gomo-
lava, Skorenovac.
There are few dates from Serbia and Bosnia: the
dates from Gomolava range between 3108–2877
BC (Petrović & Jovanović 2002: 298), a date ob-
tained from Rudna Glava is 2910–2880 BC (Borić
2009: 198), from Belovode 3130–2920 BC (Borić
2009: 208), while those from Pivnica range from
3356 to 2857 BC (Petrović & Jovanović 2002: 298).
– List of joint sites of Kostolac and Coţofeni cul-
tures (Map 1):
Bogovinska pećina, Bubanj, Crnajka–Pjatra Kosti,
Čot–Popović, Jelenac, Jezero, Kasidol–Požarevac,
Klokočevac–Culma Sciopului, Kljanc, Krivelj, Lep-
enska potkapina, Manastir–Gospodjin Vir, Padina,
Rečica–Malo Golubinje, Smiljkova glavica–Štubik,
Stenje–Turija, Vlasac, Zlotsku pećina (after Spasić
2010). The joint sites are concentrated in the Dan-
Fig. 6. Calibrated probability distributions of the radiocarbon
ube/Iron Gates–Timok–Crni Timok–Morava area.
dates of the Kostolac samples from Hungary and Croatia and a
possible combined calibration.4

3
We sincerely thank T. Hršak and M. Mihaljević for their per-
sonal communication.
4
Calibration made by Éva S. Svingor, thanks for her cooperation!
 18 
Table 1. Available radiocarbon dates of Kostolac culture from Hungary and Croatia.
Lab. ID. Site name, feature δ 13C Conventional BP Calibrated BC 1 σ Calibrated BC 2 σ

Bln-1637 Szigetcsép–Tangazdaság ? 4350 ±45 3015–2905 3095–2890
Vörs–Máriaasszony sziget, Pit No.
deb-12180 -21.0 4110 ±60 2860–2575 2880–2495
75, animal bone
Vörs–Máriaasszony sziget, Pit No.
deb-12763 -25.2 4160 ±70 2880–2635 2900–2500
53, charcoal
Vučedol–vinograd Streim, sonda
Beta 201767 -18.9 4350 ±60 3085–2900 3325–2875
V-87, Pit 60, charcoal
Z-1820 ? 4370 ±140 3335–2885 3500–2620
Z-1821 ? 4500 ±150 3370–2935 3635–2880
Beta 234048 Đakovo–Franjevac,SJ 51, charcoal -26.3 4460 ±40 3330–3025 3350–2940
Beta 238080 Đakovo–Franjevac, SJ 51, charcoal -25.0 4420 ±50 3265–2925 3335–2915
Beta234052 Đakovo–Franjevac, SJ 160, charcoal -26.0 4280 ±40 2925–2875 3020–2760
Đakovo–Franjevac, SJ 160, animal
Beta 234044 -20.7 4440 ±40 3325–3015 3335–2925
bone
Đakovo–Franjevac, SJ 578-161,
Beta 233118 -20.6 4310 ±60 3015–2885 3265–2700
animal bone
Beta 241652 -19.6 4210 ±40 2895–2700 2905–2665
tooth
Beta 234043 -25.2 4200 ±40 2890–2700 2900–2635
charcoal
Beta 234046 -26.6 4460 ±40 3330–3025 3350–2940
charcoal
Beta 238078 -25.4 4310 ±40 3010–2885 3025–2875
charcoal
Beta 241653 -19.9 4210 ±40 2895–2700 2905–2665
human bone
Beta 241651 -20.1 4190 ±40 2890–2695 2895–2630
human bone
italic; old-wood effects: the dates show older than their real age, must need reservoir correction, after Balen
2011: Tab. 13.1
Summary two dimensional similar finds with higher central

sides, such as the specimen from Ovčarovo, were
The main purpose of the present study was not to interpreted as a calendar system (Nikolov 1998).
decipher the ritual vessel’s design, probably incor- We have to distinguish genuine Kostolac wares
porating religious symbols, but rather to call atten- from Kostolac-like finds across the entire distribu-
tion to the fact that it appears to have been a grow- tion of these finds, especially in the mixed terri-
ing interest in the visual portrayal of the human tory of Slovakia, Austria and Hungary. It is pos-
perception of the environment (in part shaped by sible that many Hungarian finds assigned to the
human activities), reflected by the appearance of Kostolac culture are not genuine Kostolac wares
various depictions of these environments in ritual but simply Kostolac-like finds, suggesting that it
contexts in different parts of Late Copper Age Eu- would be more accurate to speak of a Kostolac pot-
rope. tery style rather than the Kostolac culture in Hun-
The rectangular vessels of the Kostolac culture surely gary. The relative and absolute chronology of the
were not a wagon model (as Stefan Burmeister sug- Kostolac culture needs to be re-assessed and its
gested: Burmeister 2011: 221, Abb. 16.), but a hang- chronological position as a post-Baden culture can
ing vessel for some kind of ritual purpose. Analo- be discarded. The Kostolac culture can be assigned
gous finds suggest that it may have been a hanging to the conventional Late Copper Age, spanning
altar for burning and/or smoking sacrifices. Earlier, the period between 3350 and 2800 BC, the end of
 19 
Map 3.Possible direction of the distribution of Kostolac culture or pottery style.
 20 
the Late Copper Age. A few late Kostolac dates (if dle of the Late Copper Age (3350 BC), especially
they can in fact be associated with Kostolac) in- in view of the Furchenstich-like decorations on the
dicate that the Kostolac culture survived until the vessels, which links Kostolac to the close of the
beginning of Early Bronze Age (until 2600 BC?). Middle Copper Age. This decorative technique per-
The Kostolac development was partly parallel with haps indicates its northern origin, as proposed ear-
the Baden sequence during the Late Copper Age lier by A. Benac (1962) (Map 3). Some newcomer
and with the Vučedol culture during the transition ritual vessel form appeared in the Kostolac culture
from the Late Copper Age to the Early Bronze Age compared with the Baden can explain with the lo-
(2800–2600 BC), explaining why the three cultures cation of the independent, genuine Kostolac terri-
have many mixed sites and similar vessel forms, tory since Baden and Kostolac territory were not
decorative patterns, common rites, particularly in the same (Horváth 2009). It was southwards from
the distribution of the independent Baden, Kostol- the Baden, on the northern margin of the Balkan
ac and Vučedol cultures along the Danube in the Peninsula, closer in time and space to the cradle of
Srijem, the Banat and the Bačka regions. the traditional Neolithic/Chalcolithic Southeast-
It seems to us that the beginning of the Kostolac ern-European cultures with great ritual activities
culture or pottery style should be placed in the mid- (Hansen 2001, 2007).
 21 
Bibliography
Bakker et al. 1999 J. A. Bakker & J. Kruk & A. E. Lanting & S. Milisauskas, “The earliest
evidence of wheeld vehicles in Europe and the Near East”, Antiquity 73,
York, 1999, 778–790.
Balen 2002 J. Balen, “Topografija nalazišta kostolačke kulture u sjevernoj Hrvatskoj /
The topography of the Kostolac culture in northern Croatia”, VAMZ 35,
2002, 35–52.
Balen 2005a J. Balen, Sarvaš. Neolitičko i eneolitičko naselje (Musei Archaeologici
Zagrabiensis Catalogi et Monographiae Vol. II), Zagreb, 2005.
Balen 2005b J. Balen, „Kostolački horizont na Vučedolu”, Opvscula Archaeologica 29,
2005, 25–40.
Balen 2010 J. Balen, Eneolitičke kulture na prostoru istočne Hrvatske / Eneolithic cultures
in the territory of eastern Croatia, neobjavljena doktorska disertacija /
unpublished PhD thesis, Zagreb, 2010.
Balen 2011 J. Balen, Đakovo Franjevac. Kasno bakrenodobno naselje / Late eneolithic
settlement) (Musei Archaeologici Zagrabiensis Catalogi et Monographie
vol. 7), Zagreb, 2011.
Banner 1956 J. Banner, Die Péceler Kultur (Archaeologia Hungarica 35), Budapest, 1956.
Banner & Kutzián 1960 J. Banner & I. Kutzián, „Angaben zur kupferzeitlichen chronologie des
Karpatenbeckens”, Światowit XXIII, Krakow, 1960, 341–361.
Banner & Kutzián 1961 J. Banner & I. Kutzián, „Beiträge zur Chronologie der Kupferzeit des
Karpatenbeckens”, Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae
1, Budapest, 1961,
Benac 1962 A. Benac, “Pivnica kod Odžaka i neki problemi kostolačke kulture“, Glasnik
XVII, Sarajevo, 1962, 21–40.
Bondár 1984 M. Bondár, “Neuere Funde der Kostolac und der Spätbadener Kultur in
Ungarn“, Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 36,
Budapest, 1984, 59–84.
Bondár 1996 M. Bondár, “Késő rézkori sírok Balatonbogláron. (A kostolaci kultúra leletei
Somogy megyében I) / Late Copper Age Graves at Balatonboglár (Finds of
the Kostolac Culture in Somogy County I)”, Somogyi Múzeumi Közlemények
12, Kaposvár, 1996, 3–16.
Bondár 1998 M. Bondár, “Késő rézkori település maradványa Ordacsehi–Major
lelőhelyen. / Late Copper Age settlement at the site at Ordacsehi–Major”,
Somogyi Múzeumi Közlemények 13, Kaposvár, 1998, 3–41.
Borić 2009 D. Borić, „Absolute Dating of Metallurgical Innovations in the Vinča Culture
of the Balkans“, Universitätsforsungen zur prähistorischen archäologie 169,
Bonn, 2009, 191-245.
Burmeister 2011 S. Burmeister, “Innovationswege – Wege der Kommunikation.
Erkenntnisprobleme am Beispiel des Wagens im 4. Jahrtausend v. Chr.”,
in: S. Hansen & J. Müller (eds.), Sozialarchäologische Perspektiven:
Gesellschaftlichen Wandel 5000–1500 v. Chr. zwischen Atlantik und
Kaukasus (Archäologie in Eurasien 24), Berlin – Kiel, 2011, 211–243.
Della Casa 1995 Ph. Della Casa, “The Cetina group and the transition from Copper to Bronze
Age in Dalmatia”, Antiquity 69, 1995, 565–576.
Durman 2000 A. Durman (ed.), Vucedolski Orion i najstariji europski kalendar / The
Vucedol Orion and the Oldest European Calendar. Zagreb, 2000.
Ecsedy 1984 I. Ecsedy, “Őskori leletek Dunaszekcső–Várhegyről / Prehistorical finds
from Dunaszekcső–Várhegy”, Janus Pannonius Múzeum Évkönyve 29, Pécs,
1984, 89–126.
 22 
Fettich 1969 N. Fettich, “Újabb adatok az őskori kocsihoz a Kárpát–medencében /

Neue Beiträge zum prähistorischen Wagen im Karpatenbecken”, Studia
Ethnographica 2, Budapest, 1969, 30–72.
Filipec et al. 2009 K. Filipec & D. Roksandić & M. Šiša Vivek & M. Karneluti, Arheološke slike
iz Slavonije: arheološka istraživanja na trasi autoceste Beli Manastir –
Osijek – Svilaj, Zbirka Odsjeka za arheologiju, knjižica 1, Zagreb, 2009.
Forenbaher 1993 S. Forenbaher, “Radiocarbon dates and absolute chronology of the central
European Early Bronze Age”, Antiquity 67, York, 1993, 218–257.
Gherdán 2009 K. Gherdán, 7000 év kerámiái, Vörs, Máriaasszony–sziget őskori
kerámialeleteinek archeometriai összehasonlító vizsgálata területi
kitekintéssel / Potteries of 7000 years. Comparing archaeometrical
investigation of the prehistoric settlement site of Vörs, Máriasszonysziget
(unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Eötvös Lóránd), Budapest,
2009.
Gherdán & Horváth 2009 K. Gherdán & T. Horváth, “Petrographic investigation on the finds of
Balatonőszöd–Temetői dűlő Baden settlement“, in: K. T. Biró & V. Szilágyi
& A. Kreiter (eds.), Vessels: inside and outside. Proceedings of the conference
EMAC’07, 9th European meeting on Ancient Ceramics, 24–27 october 2007,
Hungarian National Museum, Budapest, Hungary, Budapest, 2009, 265–
276.
Gherdán et al. 2010 K. Gherdán & M. Tóth & K. Herbich & M. Hajnalova & M. Hlozek & L.
Prokes & J. Mihály & T. Horváth, “Természettudományos megfigyelések
a középső és késő rézkori kultúrák fazekasáruin Balatonőszöd–Temetői
dűlő lelőhelyen / Analytical data on Middle and Late Copper Age pottery
production at Balatonőszöd–Temetői dűlő”, Archeometriai Műhely 2010/1,
83–104.
Gimbutas 1989 M. Gimbutas, The Language of the Goddessess. London, 1989.
Hansen 2001 S. Hansen, “Neolithic Sculpture. Some Remarks on an Old Problem” in
P. F. Biehl, F. Bertemes and H. Meller (eds.), The Archaeology of Cult and
Religion, Budapest, 2001, 37–53.
Hansen 2007 S. Hansen, Bilder vom Menschen der Steinzeit. Untersuchungen zur
anthropomorphen Plastik der Jungsteinzeit und Kupferzeit in Südosteuropa.
Archäologie in Eurasien Band 20, 2007, Mainz.
Hoffiller 1933 V. Hoffiller, Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. fasc. I., Paris, 1933.
Horváth 2009 T. Horváth, The intercultural connections of the Baden “culture”, in G. Ilon
(ed.), MΩMOΣ VI, Őskoros kutatók VI. Összejövetele, Szombathely, 2009,
101–149.
Horváth 2010a T. Horváth, “Megfigyelések a középső és késő rézkori kultúrák fazekasáruin
Balatonőszöd-Temetői dűlő lelőhelyen. Készítéstechnikai vizsgálatok /
Archaeological contribution to the study of the Middle and Late Copper
Age pottery”, Archeometriai Műhely 2010/1, 51–82.
Horváth 2010b T. Horváth, “Manifestationen des Transzendenten in der Badener Siedlung
von Balatonőszöd–Temetői Dűlő — Kultgegenstände“, Praehistorische
Zeitschrift 85, Berlin, 2010, 79–119.
Horváth 2011 T. Horváth, “A késő rézkor időszaka más szemszögből: tipo-kronológiai
megfigyelések a Balatonőszöd–Temetői dűlői késő rézkori Boleráz/Baden
település leletanyagán” GESTA X, Miskolc, 2011, 3–135. (http://www.
tortenelemszak.uni-miskolc.hu/gesta/gesta2011)
Horváth 2012 T. Horváth, Networks and Netwars: new perspectives on the Late Copper
Age and Early Bronze Age. Typo-chronological relationships of the Boleraz/
Baden/Kostolac finds at the site of Balatonőszöd–Temetői dűlő, Hungary.
BAR International Series 2427, Oxford, 2012.
Hršak & Pavlović 2007 Hršak & I. Pavlović, “Kaznica – Rutak”, Hrvatski arheološki godišnjak 3
(2006), Zagreb, 2007, 16–18.
 23 
Ilon 2004 G. Ilon, “Szombathely őskori településtörténetének vázalat. Avagy a római

kor előtt is volt élet. / Outline of the Pre-Historic settlement of Szombathely”
Őskorunk 2, Szombathely, 2004.
Korek 1984 J. Korek, “Ásatások Szigetcsép–Tangazdaság I. lelőhelyen. A későrézkori
település leletei / Ausgrabungen auf dem Fundort Szigetcsép–Tangazdaság
I. Funde der spätkupferzeitlichen Siedlung“, Communicationes
Archaeologicae Hungariae 1984, Budapest, 5–29.
Kovách 1894 A. Kovách, “A szelevény–vadasi virágcserép / The vessel of Szelevény–
Vadas“, Archaeológiai Értesítő 14, Budapest, 1894, 191.
Kreiter 2007 A. Kreiter, Technological Choices and Material Meanings in Early and
Middle Bronze Age Hungary: Understanding the Active Role of Material
Culture through Ceramic Analysis. (BAR International Series 1604.)
Oxford, 2007.
Leuzinger 2000 U. Leuzinger, Die jungsteinzeitliche Seeufersiedlung Arbon/Bleiche 3.
Befunde (Archäologie im Thurgau 9), Frauenfeld, 2000.
Matuschik 1996 I. Matuschik, Brillen- und Hakenspiralen der frühen Metallzeit Europas.
Germania 74/1, Berlin, 1996, 1–43.
Mihaljević 2010a M. Mihaljević, “Krušćik”, Hrvatski arheološki godišnjak 6/2009 (2010),
107.
Mihaljević 2010b M. Mihaljević. “Vidovci–Rosulje”, Hrvatski arheološki godišnjak 6/2009
(2010), 116-117.
Milisauskas & Kruk 1991 S. Milisauskas & J. Kruk, “Utilization of cattle for traction during the later
Neolithic in southeastern Poland”, Antiquity 65, York, 1991, 562–566.
Nikolić 2000 D. Nikolić, Kostolačka kultura na teritoriji Srbije. Centar za arheološka
istraživanja, Belgrade, 2000.
Nikolov 1998 V. Nikolov, “Die Kultszene aus Ovčarovo: ein Versuch für
Kalenderinterpretierung“, in: P. Anreiter & L. Bartosiewitz & E. Jerem &
M. Meid (eds.), Man and the animal World. Studies in Archaeozoology,
Archeology, Anthropology and Paleolinguistics in memoriam Sándor
Bökönyi, Budapest, 1998, 403–407.
Patay 1938 P. Patay, „Korai bronzkori kultúrák Magyarországon / Frühbronzezeitliche
Kulturen in Ungarn“ DissertationesPann. Ser II No. 13, Budapest, 1938.
Patay, P. 2005. P. Patay, Kupferzeitliche Siedlung von Tiszalúc. Inventaria Praehistorica
Hungariae XI, Budapest, 2005.
Petrović & Jovanović 2002 J. Petrović & B. Jovanović, Gomolava. Naselje kasnog eneolita. –
Gomolava. Settlements of the Late Eneolithic (Gomolava Knjiga 4), Novi
Sad – Beograd, 2002.
Pétrequin et al. 2006 P. Pétrequin & A.-M. Pétrequin & M. Bailly, “Vues du Jura francais: les
premieres tractions animales au Néolithique en Europe occidentale”, in:
P. Pétrequin & R.-M. Arbogast & A.-M. Pétrequin & S. van Willigen &
M. Bailly (eds.), Premiers chariots, premiers araires. La diffusion de la
traction animale en Europa pendant les IVe et III e ère (Centre National de
la Recherche Scientifique, Centre d’études Préhistoire, Antiquité, Moyen
Âge, CRA 29 Monographies), Paris, 2006, 361–399.
Piggott 1983 S. Piggott, The earliest Wheeled Transport. From the Atlantic Coast to the
Caspian Sea. London, 1983.
Rezi Kató 1998 G. Rezi Kató, “The Vessel from Szelevény–Vadas”, Communicationes
Archaeologicae Hungariae 1998, Budapest, 5–19.
Rezi Kató 2001 G. Rezi Kató, “Adalékok a középső rézkor hitvilágához / Contributions
to our perception of the body of beliefs in the Middle Copper Age”, in: J.
Dani & Zs. Hajdú & E. Gy. Nagy & L. Selmeczi (eds.), MΩMOΣ I. Fiatal
Őskoros Kutatók I. Összejövetelének konferenciakötete, Debrecen, 1997.
november 10–13, Debrecen, 119–128.
 24 
Ruttkay 2002 E. Ruttkay, “Das endneolithische Hügelgrab von Neusiedl am See,

Burgenland. Zweite Vorlage – Teil I – Die Fazies Neusiedl“, Budapest
Régiségei 36, 2002, 145–170.
Siklósi 2004 Zs. Siklósi, “A Kostolac–kultúra újabb temetkezései Balatonbogláron /
The latest burials of the Kostolac at Balatonboglár”, Somogyi Múzeumi
Közlemények 16, Kaposvár, 2004, 139–161.
Siklósi 2009 Zs. Siklósi, Absolute and internal chronology of the Late Copper Age
cemetery at Budakalász. in: M. Bondár & P. Raczky (eds), The Copper Age
Cemetery of Budakalász. Budapest, 2009, 457–475
Spasić 2010 M. Spasić, “Coţofeni communities at their southwestern frontier and their
relationship with Kostolac population in Serbia“, Dacia LIV, Bucuresti,
2010, 157–175.
Stapelfeldt 1997 T. Stapelfeldt, Zum Kostolacer Zierstil. in: C. Becker & M.-L. Dunkelmann
& C. Metzner-Nebelsick & H. Peter-Röcher & M. Roeder (eds.), Kronos.
Beiträge zur prähistorischen Archäologie zwischen Nord- und Südosteuropa.
Festschrift für Bernard Hänsel (Internationale Archäologie – Studia
Honoraria 1), Berlin, 1997, 157–165.
Todorova 1982 H. Todorova, Kupferzeitliche Siedlungen in Nordostbulgarien (Materialien
zur Allgemeinen und Vergleichenden Archäologie 13), München, 1982.
Todorova et al. 1983 H. Todorova & V. Vasziljev & Z. Jánusevics & M. Kovacseva & P. Blej,
Raszkopki i proucsvanyija ih Ovcsarovo. Szofia, 1983.
 25 

The Cultural Attribution and Dating of The Cult Vessel From Szelevény - Vadas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Cultural Attribution and Dating of The Cult Vessel From Szelevény - Vadas

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Cultural Attribution and Dating of The Cult Vessel From Szelevény - Vadas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tünde Horváth & Jacqueline Balen The cultural attribution and dating of the cult... Opusc.archaeol.

36, 7–25, 2012

Tünde Horváth & Jacqueline Balen

The cultural attribution and dating of the

Izvorni znanstveni rad/ Research Center for the Humanities,

Arheološki muzej u Zagrebu,

Introduction decorative designs from Croatia, as well as their

One of these is the depiction on a vessel from

Map 2. Spatial distribution of Kostolac sites in Croatia (by Ana Solter).

Lab. ID. Site name, feature δ 13C Conventional BP Calibrated BC 1 σ Calibrated BC 2 σ

Summary two dimensional similar finds with higher central

Map 3.Possible direction of the distribution of Kostolac culture or pottery style.

Fettich 1969 N. Fettich, “Újabb adatok az őskori kocsihoz a Kárpát–medencében /

Ilon 2004 G. Ilon, “Szombathely őskori településtörténetének vázalat. Avagy a római

Ruttkay 2002 E. Ruttkay, “Das endneolithische Hügelgrab von Neusiedl am See,

You might also like