Metzner Nebelsick

BUDAPEST 2012

Archaeological, Cultural and

Linguistic Heritage

Festschrift for Erzsbet Jerem

in Honour of her 70th Birthday

Edited by

Peter Anreiter, Eszter Bnffy, Lszl Bartosiewicz,

Wolfgang Meid & Carola Metzner-Nebelsick

Published in cooperation withInnsbrucker Beitrge zur Kulturwissenschaft

and with the support ofBundesministerium fr Wissenschaft und Forschung, Vienna

Cover

Stamp decorated Early La Tne ask from HidegsgEisenstadt, Burgenlndisches Landesmuseum

Volume Editor

WOLFGANG MEIDassisted by

Fruzsina Cseh, Gergely Hs, Rita Kovcs, Tanja Rasetzki & Judit Solti

ISBN 978-963-9911-28-4HU-ISSN 1215-9239

The Authors and Archaeolingua Foundation

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or any other information storage and

retrieval system, without requesting prior permission in writing from the publisher.

2012

ARCHAEOLINGUA ALAPTVNYH-1250 Budapest, ri u. 49

Desktop editing and layout by Rita Kovcs

Printed by AduPrint Kft.

Contents

Vorwort .................................................................................................................................................. 9

List of Publications by Erzsbet Jerem ................................................................................................. 11

PETER ANREITEREin onomastischer Streifzug durch das Burgenland ..................................................................... 21

JESS ALBERTO ARENAS-ESTEBANThe Celtiberian World: A Long Process of Cultural Hybridization .............................................. 33

BETTINA ARNOLDSoul Stones: Unmodi ed Quartz and Other Lithic Material in Early Iron Age Burials ........... 47

ESZTER BNFFY PL SMEGIThe Early Neolithic Agro-Ecological Barrier in the Carpathian Basin:A Zone for Interaction .................................................................................................................. 57

LSZL BARTOSIEWICZCernunnos in Hungary? ................................................................................................................ 71

MRIA BONDRA New Late Copper Age Wagon Model from the Carpathian Basin ............................................ 79

STEFAN BURMEISTER PETER RAULWINGFestgefahren. Die Kontroverse um den Ursprung des Streitwagens. Einige Anmerkungen zu Forschung, Quellen und Methodik ....................................................... 93

PATRIZIA DE BERNARDO STEMPEL FRANCISCO BURILLO MOZOTA M ESPERANZA SAIZ CARRASCO REINHOLD WEDENIG

Women Potters and Their Names in Celtic-Speaking Areas ................................................. 115

GERHARD DOBESCHDie Rolle der Redner und der Rednerschulen in der provinzialrmischen Kultur ..................... 135

ALEXANDRINE EIBNERMnner in Waffen: Kmpfer oder Tnzer? ................................................................................. 159

CLEMENS EIBNERHallstttische Sagen und Mythen ............................................................................................... 195

ERIKA GLThe First Cock Crow: On the Occurrence and Spreading of Domestic Hen (Gallus domesticus Linnaeus 1758) in Hungary ........................................................................ 207

6MITJA GUTINDie keltische Bauernsiedlung bei Murska Sobota am Sdrand Pannoniens .............................. 215

BERNHARD HNSEL BIBA TERAN KRISTINA MIHOVILIBeile und ihre Teile. Beobachtungen an Funden aus Monkodonja/Istrien ................................. 225

RALPH HAEUSSLERHero Cults between Iron Age and Principate ............................................................................. 249

IVO HAJNALHistorisch-Vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft, Archologie, Archogenetik und Glottochronologie: Lassen sich diese Disziplinen sinnvoll vereinen? ....................................... 265

MICHAEL JANDAAbbilder der Morgenrte: Ungarisch asszony Frau und seine iranische Vorgeschichte ......... 283

RAIMUND KARL KATE WADDINGTONAusgrabungen in der doppelten Ringwallanlage von Meillionydd bei Rhiw auf der Lln-Halbinsel, Nordwest-Wales ................................................................................... 289

KARL KAUS MARGARETE KAUSZum Kultgert von Haschendorf ................................................................................................ 303

VIKTRIA KISSCentral European and Southeastern Alpine In uences upon Western Transdanubias Early and Middle Bronze Age ............................................................ 321

SUSANNE KLEMMDie Bergbaufolgelandschaft in der Eisenerzer Ramsau, Steiermark (sterreich): Methoden und Ergebnisse montanarchologischer Forschung .................................................. 337

GABRIELLA KULCSRSiedlungen entlang des Kapos-Tals (Sd-Transdanubien) zu Beginn der Bronzezeit ............... 349

AMEI LANGDas Grab der Nerka. Bemerkungen zu Este Ricovero, Grab 23 ................................................ 363

JUTTA LESKOVAREisenzeitliche Argumente im Neodruidentum ............................................................................ 379

FRANCISCO MARCO SIMNFrom the Kermaria Stone to the Turibulum of Chartres: Some Thoughts on Celtic Cosmology ........................................................................................ 393

JOHN VINCENT STANLEY MEGAW MADELINE RUTH MEGAWPoles apart? Notes from the fringes of the Hungarian sword style ........................................ 401

7WOLFGANG MEIDAspekte keltischer Glaubensvorstellungen: Seelenwanderung und Gestaltenwechsel .............. 415

CAROLA METZNER-NEBELSICKSocial Transition and Spatial Organisation: The Problem of the Early Iron Age Occupation of the Strongholds in Northeast Hungary ....... 425

LOUIS NEBELSICKScythian Eagles with Ionic Honeysuckle. Patterns of Iconographic Acculturation in the North Pontic Steppes during the 6th and 5th Centuries BC .......................................................... 449

GARRETT OLMSTEDPortrayals of Elephants, Grif ns, and Dolphins in Western Celtic Metalwork and Coinage During the First Century BC ........................................................................................ 475

KLRA PUSZTAIN FISCHL JNOS PL REBENDAEarly Bronze Age (RB A1A2, about 23001500 cal BC) Settlement Structure at the Northern Part of the Great Hungarian Plain. A Case Study: Mezcst-Pstidomb .............. 487

PETER C. RAMSLTwo Stone Stelae from the La Tne Cemetery at Mannersdorf/Leithagebirge, Flur Reinthal Sd ........................................................................................................................ 499

FERENC REDReconstruction Model of the Lenyfalu burgus ......................................................................... 509

KARL HORST SCHMIDTOn the Reconstruction of Celtic Prehistory. Towards a New Analysis of the Change of Position of Celtic among the Indo-European Languages .................................... 525

FRANKA SCHWELLNUSFunktionsanalyse der spthallstatt- bis frhlatnezeitlichen Siedlungskeramik aus Sopron-Krautacker ............................................................................................................... 531

DAVID STIFTEREine V.I.P. zwischen Pannonien und Tirol .................................................................................. 539

THOMAS STLLNERThe Rise of the Proto-Celts? The Transition from the Early to the Late Hallstatt-Period in Southern Germany .......................................................................... 551

KARIN STBEREine fragmentarische gallische Inschrift aus Augusta Raurica ................................................... 569

8ROBERTO TARPINIberlegungen zur Herausbildung hallstattzeitlicher Musterkanone am Ostalpenrand anhand des Beispiels der Kegelhalsgefverzierung .................................................................. 575

GERHARD TOMEDI ULRIKE TCHTERLEDer Kupferbergbau als movens fr die frh- und mittelbronzezeitliche Aufsiedelung Nordtirols ........................................................... 587

RASTKO VASIBalkan Connections in the Early Iron Age ................................................................................. 601

JRGEN ZEIDLERA Proto-Indo-European Ancestor God in Celtic Tradition ......................................................... 605

MANUEL ZEILERGrber: Kein Spiegel des Lebens. Die Laufzeitdatierung jngerlatnezeitlicher Gefkeramik in Abhngigkeit von Verbreitung und zeitlicher Entwicklung der Beigabensitten ..................... 617

List of Contributors ............................................................................................................................ 629

Social Transition and Spatial Organisation:

The Problem of the Early Iron Age Occupation

of the Strongholds in Northeast Hungary

CAROLA METZNER-NEBELSICK

Introduction

Hillfort research in Hungary has always been of prominent concern to Erzsbet Jerem. The rst time when I recall hearing her views on this interesting topic was during her lecture series on the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age of Hungary, which she held in 1984 as an exchange scholar at the Archaeological Institute of the University of Oxford. I am deeply thankful to Erzsbet for having encouraged me as a young student and ever since as well as for kindling the re of interest for the Bronze and Iron Age of Hungary and the Carpathian Basin in general.

In this article I will focus my attention on north-eastern Hungary, since here the question of the duration of hill top settlement occupation has in the past been regarded as signi cantly different from the western part of Hungary or the east Alpine Hallstatt Culture, where prominent sites such as the well known Sopron Burgstall, Velem-Szentvid, Stillfried, Maribor Potela, Kleinklein Burgstall or others have been discussed intensively by various scholars. These hillforts are indeed crucial for our understanding of the eastern Hallstatt culture (Osthallstattkultur or Osthallstattkreis; JEREM LIPPERT 1996). One of the prominent features of the eastern Hallstatt Region are forti ed hilltop settlements (Burgstall Siedlungen), which functioned as foci of larger geographical areas and are always accompanied by tumulus cemeteries. The importance of these places is most clearly shown by the rich grave inventories of the inhabitants of the hillforts often containing artefacts with high status value.

One of interesting differences between east Alpine hillforts and those further to the west involves their spans of occupation. Whereas strongholds in Styria, Dolenjsko, western Hungary, northeast Austria and western Slovakia1 as well as related sites on the south-eastern fringe of the Hallstatt world2 were intensively settled in the Hallstatt C period, evidence in northern Bavaria/Franconia shows a very different picture. In this region no traces of signi cant hillfort occupation in Ha C1 have been recognized so far (GERLACH 1998; RIND 1999).

The same occupation pattern, i.e. an intensive settlement phase at the end of the Urn eld period (10th8th c. BC) and a lack of occupation in Ha C, has also been proposed for the areas east of the bend of the Danube (MATUZ NOVKI 2002). It has to be mentioned, however, that this assumption is also based on a chronological understanding of the Urn eld period as proposed by Hermann Mller-Karpe in 1959, which saw the beginning of the Hallstatt period around 700 BC. More recent studies supported by

1 Velem: VON MISKE 1908; Sopron: PATEK 1968, pl. 28; 1982; 1993; for Hungary, eastern Austria and western Slovakia in general see JEREM URBAN 2000; for western Hungary also Nagyberki-Szalacska, though largely unpublished (various preliminary reports by HONTI 1992), Pcs-Jakabhegy (MARZ 1996); northeast Austria: Stillfried (HELLERSCHID 2006); western Slovakia: Smolenice-Molpr (DUEK DUEK 1984; 1995; PARZINGER STEGMANN-RAJTR1988; STEGMANN-RAJTR 1998; 2000); titre-ibrica (STEGMANN-RAJTR 2004) and others (HORK STEGMANN-RAJTR 2008); northeast Austria: Braunsberg (URBAN 2011) or in the southeast Alpine region: Kleinklein (DOBIAT 1990; SMOLNIK 1996); Potela near Maribor (TERAN 1990), Stina (GABROVEC 1994), also DULAR TECCO HVALA 2007.

2 In the southeast Pannonian or so-called Dalj group: the forti ed settlement of Batina (METZNER-NEBELSICK 2002).

426 Carola Metzner-Nebelsick

dendrodates from various places have shown that in south-central Europe the beginning of the Hallstatt Period must already have taken place within the 8th c. BC with a nd horizon prior to the classical Ha C1 Mindelheim period3.

In north-eastern Hungary there is ample evidence for hilltop settlements and forti cations, the same holds true for adjacent Slovakia4. Especially in the Late Bronze Age according to the Central European terminology, i.e. the Urn eld Period, a large number of forti ed settlements can be named. The best researched strongholds in the area under consideration include Bkkszentlszl-Nagysnc, Felstrkny-Vrhegy and Szilvsvrad-Trksnc (see below). In some of these sites hoard nds dating to the 9th/early 8th c. BC (MOZSOLICS 2000) have been discovered. This period is equivalent to the Early Iron Age in Hungarian terminology or the Late Urn eld/Ha B late phase in Central European terminology.

The area in question is formed by the Zempln, Mtra and Bkk Mountains between the Zagyva and Bodrog rivers as well as the Cserht and Brzsny Mountains to the west (Fig. 1). Those mountains or hills form part of the southern fringes of the north-western Carpathians and reach heights between 400 and up to 1000 meters. Particularly the lower elevations around 500 m, which are divided by small rivers, provide the geographical setting for the settlement type in question. At rst sight, our knowledge about Late Bronze Age/Urn eld Period settlements in north-eastern Hungary appears to be quite satisfactory thanks to a comprehensive monographic study by Edit Matuz and Gyula Novki (MATUZ NOVKI 2002) as well as a series of articles by MATUZ (1992; 1994; 1999; 2001; MATUZ KLLAY 1993/1994) about hillforts in northeast Hungary5.

A closer look at a representative selection of 46 forti ed settlements of presumably Late Bronze Age date however, reveals a different picture. 35 out of these 46 are marked on Fig. 2. Again 28 of those can,

3 For further references see PARE 1998; METZNER-NEBELSICK 2002, 46 ff.; TRACHSEL 2004.4 NOVKI BARZ 2000; MATUZ NOVKI 2002; NOVKI SRKZY FELD 2007; NOVKI et al. 2009; for

eastern Slovakia among others: BUDINSK-KRIKA MIROAYOV 1992; MIROAYOV 1987.5 The volume on the forti ed settlements in the county of Heves (NOVKI et al. 2009) was not at my disposal.

Fig. 1. Modi ed distribution map by MATUZ NOVKI (2002, 77 g. 1). Hillforts of the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age in Northeast Hungary. Sites with a Ha C or Ha C/D occupation underlined in black:

11: Bkkszentlszl-Nagysnc; 13: Szilvsvrad-Kelemenszke (Trksnc); 14: Felstrkny-Vrhegy; 22: Mtraszentimre-gasvr; 40: Percsny-Jancsi-hegy.

427Social transition and spatial organisation

according to Novki and Matuz and recent studies by Gbor SZAB (2009), be dated to the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age that is the Urn eld period , by the evidence of pottery. In 13 cases out of the 28 cases cited by these authors the material recovered from surveys have remained largely unpublished. Moreover only 7 of these north east Hungarian strongholds have been partly investigated by small scale excavations. The rest of the forti ed sites mentioned by Matuz and Novki is only attributed to the Urn eld period on typological grounds, i.e. on the basis of the shape of their ramparts. As a conclusion, we have to live with the fact that only a small sample of these sites can fairly securely be dated to the time between 1300 and 800 BC.

In an article published in 2001 Matuz made detailed comparative analyses of pottery from various hillfort sites in order to demonstrate that they outlived the immigration of a pre-Scythian population from the eastern European Steppes and were still occupied in the 9th to 8th c. BC (Ha B23). This argument was based mainly on a statement proposed by Tibor Kemenczei (KEMENCZEI 1984), who saw a major collapse of the Gva and Kyjatice cultural groups as the result of the invasion of nomadic population groups from areas east of the Carpathian Mountains. This event, he argued, lead to the deposition of hoard nds and the abandonment of the mountain strongholds, which then remained unused during the pre-Scythian period. The new invasive population was identi ed with the Fzesabony-Mezcst-Group (PATEK 1993; METZNER-NEBELSICK 1998; ROMSAUER 1999). In the aforementioned article of 2001 Matuz corrected this view by focussing on the surprisingly large number of sherds with clear parallels in nd contexts of the 9th to 8th century BC from the southeast of the Hungarian Plain and the lower Danube area as well as from the pre-Scythian burials themselves (MATUZ 2001). Matuz showed convincingly that these hillforts ourished while the pre-Scythian populations of the Fzesabony-Mezcst-Group inhabited the lowlands. Nonetheless she did not consider a date later than the close of the Ha B period for hillfort occupation in northeast Hungary to be an option. This thesis, I believe, needs to be re-examined.

Matuz and Novkis (2001; 2002) arguments were dominated by the idea that the antagonistic relationship of the steppe based people in the plain and those of an indigenous population in the mountains and hills caused the nal abandonment of these sites as well leading to the hiding of the bronze values in form of hoards or even the occupation of caves as refuge (MATUZ 2001, 299). Although the arrival of new population elements during the transition between the late Bronze and early Iron Age can not be excluded and is in fact highly likely, in my view the assumption that there was a catastrophic in ux of easterners in pre-Scythian times which led to large scale destruction and cultural disruption is largely biased and does not take all the available evidence into account. Since I have dealt with this problem of a pre-Scythian steppe based impact into the Carpathian Basin in detail in several articles, I do not wish to comment on this complex issue again (METZNER-NEBELSICK 1998; 2002; 2010). Two points however should be addressed brie y in this article:

The rst concerns hoarding practices. In the Bronze Age and Urn eld period hoards can no longer be seen as indicators for catastrophic events. The reoccurring patterns of their deposition and the patterned composition of their contents show them to be one of the most characteristic features of ritual behaviour with a religious connotation for European societies in general. The comprehensive literature on hoards and their current interpretation can not be quoted here in detail6. Following this paradigm, it can also be assumed that nds in caves are ritually motivated depositions either in form of material sacri ces or indeed as burial offerings, but can not be seen as debris of living quarters in times of crisis.

The second point I would like to make, is to oppose the argument that forti cations of the Kyjatice culture in northern Hungary were not occupied after the Ha B23 period. A re-examination of the

6 An overview gives HANSEN 1991; 1994; METZNER-NEBELSICK in print.


evidence shows that settlement in these strongholds continued well into the Ha C1 period that is the 7thc. BC.

The argument as it stands, i.e. the whole scale abandonment of these sites at the beginning of the early Iron Age, implies that the patterns of stronghold occupation in eastern Hungary stood in strong contrast to the situation west of the Danube and also in western7 as well as eastern Slovakia8 where settlement activity reaches a peak in the 7th c. BC. If we look further east to the Middle Dnestr region, the picture is complex but similar. Although research in this region is still at a preliminary stage, it can be said that some hillforts with a late Urn eld occupation were also inhabited in the Iron Age, i.e. in the 7th and 6th c. BC. This is remarkable, since here a steppe impact may in fact have been even greater than in the Great Hungarian Plain (Alfld)9.

Nonetheless it can be stated that in north-eastern Hungary the major occupation and forti cation periods lie in the Urn eld period with different intervals within the 13th to 9th century BC and a later phase in the Latne Period10. One problem in addressing the issue of a Hallstatt period occupation of northeast Hungarian hillforts is the chronological terminology or rather our understanding of the meaning of certain chronological labels, as will be shown below. A second problem is the attribution of a supposedly historical paradigm to an archaeological material and the attendant limitation of interpretation due to the persistence of set assumptions. A third point is that phases of rampart construction and the ones of settlement occupation need not be identical, as existing hillfort ramparts may have been used continually by population groups succeeding those who built them.

Discussion of sites and material

The evidence of the hillforts which will be discussed here is the same used by Novki and Matuz. The most important sites in question are Miskolc-Bkkszentlszl, Nagysnc in the county of Borsod-Abaj-Zempln, which was excavated in 1930 and 1958 by Andor Leszih and Mihly Prducz; Felstrkny-Vrhegy, Heves county, which was excavated rst in 1962 and 1964 by Prducz (MATUZ 1992; MATUZ NOVKI 2002, 27 ff.), Szilvsvrad, also in Heves county, from which archaeological evidence for parts of the interior and a section through the rampart was gained by Erzsbet Pateks excavation in 1963 (MATUZ 1999; MATUZ NOVKI 2002, 31 ff.) and nally Mtraszentimre-gasvr in the county of Heves (MATUZ KLLAY 1993/1994). Problems are posed by limitations in the quality of the published documentation of many of these sites. In most cases pottery was not associated with separate layers or rarely to closed nd complexes, thus stratigraphical information with chronological value is often missing.

Miskolc-Bkkszentlszl, Nagysnc:With 16,9 ha of encompassed area Miskolc-Bkkszentlszl, Nagysnc (meaning large stronghold) is one of the larger hillforts in the region. It is located at a height of 455 m above sea level in the Mtra Mountains. There is no published documentation of settlement structures within the ramparts on

7 For new results on Smolenice-Molpr see: DUEK DUEK 1995; STEGMANN-RAJTR 2000.8 MIROAYOVA 1987; BUDINSKY-KRIKA MIROAYOVA 1992 9 Dolinjani (SMIRNOVA 2001) or Zalyssja (GANYNA 1984) to name just two, the latter with very early imports of

Greek Ionian pottery as well as early wheel turned pottery, so called grey ware (KAUBA LEVICKIJ 2009).10 This could recently been shown by Kroly Tnko and Andrea Vaday for the hillfort of Mtraszls-Kirlydomb

(TANK VADAY 2010). Here a later Iron Age occupation could be easily proven by Latne wheel turned pottery as well as Kammstrichware. Indeed the identi cation of early Hallstatt (Ha C) pottery or domestic wares is a big problem on a lot of sites, where painted pottery or other truly signi cant shapes or dcors are missing.


Fig. 2. Selection of Late Bronze and Iron Age hill site forti ed settlements in Northeast Hungary(XXX = positive evidence; informations mainly after MATUZ NOVKI 2002; SZAB 2009).

siteLBA/EIA defense

(excavation)

Urn eld

occupationsurvey bronze hoards

special

features

8th/7th c. BC

occupation

Bkkszentlszl-Nagysnc

1. phase: -; 2. phase: + Ha A/Ha B excavation 3: 9th/8th c. BC pits XXXXXXXXXXXX

Felstrkny-Vrhegy 1. phase

1. phase: -; 2. phase: + Ha A/Ha B excavation houses XXXXXXXXXXXX

Szilvsvrad-Kelemenszke

earthern rampart with wooden frame

Ha B3 excavation X pits XXXXXXXXXXXX

Mtraszentimre-gasvr Kyjatice excavation house, pit XXXXXXXXXXXX

Percsny-Halyagos XXX settlement outside rampart

Kyjatice XXXXX arti cial terraces

XXXXXXXXXXXX

Cserpfalu-Msz-tet earthern rampart, settlement outside rampart

Kyjatice XXXXXX ditch

Kemence-Godvr stone fronting/earthen rampart with stone core

Ha B XXXXXX

Bkkaranyos-Fldvr date??? LBA ditch Piliny/Kyjatice 4:10th & 9th c.

Boldogkjfalu-Kincses-hegy

LBA XXXXXX arti cial terraces

Bkkzsrc, Hdos-tet XXX 4: Urn eld periodDdestapolcsny-Verebce-tet

earthern rampart Kyjatice XXXXXX X

Disjen-Pognyvr Kyjatice XXXXXX arti cial terraces

Galyatet-Nyesettvr XXX KyjaticeGrmbly-Vrhegy XXX Kyjatice

Gyngyssolymos-Kis-hegy

stone construction Piliny 4: Urn eld period

Gyngyspata-Vrhegy Piliny XXXXXX

Hont-Jelenc-hegy wooden frame construction Kyjatice

Kemence-Magosfa stone rampart Kyjatice XXXXXX gate; date?

Kemence-Plska-szikla stone rampart Kyjatice XXXXXX

Karancsalja-Kpolna Kyjatice XXXXXX 2 terraces

Mtraszentimre-vr stone and earthen rampart Kyjatice XXXXXX X: 9th c. BC

Mtraszls-Kerekbkk stone rampart LBA XXXXXX XMiskolctapolca-Vrhegy only Latne forti cation? Kyjatice

Nagybrzsny-Magyar-hegy

Kyjatice XXXXXX arti cial terraces

Nagybrzsny-Rustok-hegy

wooden frame with earth lling

Kyjatice

Percsny-Jancsi-hegy XXX Kyjatice Romhny-Vrhegy XXX Kyjatice

Sly-Latorvr-tet XXX KyjaticeSzanda-Szanda-Vrhegy stone rampart LBA/Ha B3? 2: one 9th c. BC destroyed

Szcsny-Benczrfalva, Majohegy

Piliny/Kyjatice several

Szokoly-Pap-hegy stone rampart Kyjatice house foundations

Tllya-vr Earth and stone rampart ? LBA XXXXXX X 4 gates

Tllya-Mekecsvr LBA XXXXXX ditch

Tolcsava-Vrhegy stone rampart Ha B3/Ha C? XXXXXX

Abasr-Rnya-brc XXX X

Further LBA/EIA defended sites: Boldogkvralja-T-hegy, Bkkszenterzsbet-Nagy k, Fony-Sllyedt Bn-hegy, Gyngyssolymos-Eremny, Hangony-Pognyvr, Jobbgyi-Vrhegy, Mtrafred-Benevr-brc, Pard-Vrhegy, Sirok, Sernyfalva-Zsidvr, Telkibnya-Cser-hegy


a larger scale; a comprehensive report of the research done so far is published by Matuz (1994). After an unforti ed settlement phase, which according to Matuz belongs to the early phase of the Kyjatice cultural group or the Ha A2/B1 period (i.e. 11th to 10th c. BC), the rst forti ed period is dated to the 9th and early 8th c. BC that is the late phase of the Kyjatice cultural group (MATUZ 1994, 54). A section through the rampart on the north-eastern part of the forti cation was excavated by Prducz, but only a rather schematised impression is published (MATUZ NOVKI 2002, 125 g. 49). It seems to have consisted of a stone fronting, which was backed up by an earthen construction with traces of burnt wood, hinting at a wood and earth rampart construction (Holzerdemauer). Obviously the rampart was reused and upgraded in the Latne Period as early Iron Age sherds in the upper layers of the forti cation indicate (MATUZ NOVKI 2002, 10)11.

Szilvsvrad-Kelemenszke (Trksnc):

The forti cation of Szilvsvrd-Kelemenszke (Trksnc) situated on a ca. 703 m high elevation of the Mtra Mountains covers an area of around 60 ha, which is substantially larger than Bkkszentlszl and furthermore one of the largest hillforts in the area. A section through the rampart revealed a construction with an earthen core with masses of charcoal and ash, so that a burnt wooden frame might be reconstructed (PATEK 1973, pl. 1920; MATUZ 1999; MATUZ NOVKI 2002, 126 g. 50). The present outline of the forti cation system with several gates seems however to be of later date. Inside the settlement Erzsbet Patek describes replaces, pits and ashy layers (MATUZ 1999, 9 ff.). The published material shows a wide variety of cultural contacts of the hillfort inhabitants with the east, most notably the Gva-Holirhady culture, represented by channelled pottery and animal gurines (PATEK 1973; MATUZ NOVKI 2002, 184 g. 110,14.16), as well as to the Urn eld world in the west.

Felstrkny-Vrhegy:The best documented site available to us is Felstrkny-Vrhegy12, because excavations took place in several parts of the site especially in the south. The settlement lies on a 668 m high and with only 1,6 ha comparatively small plateau. Its small and elongated ground plan falls into two parts, which are connected by a narrow land bridge. Only the southern part revealed Late Bronze Age settlement structures. Like in Bkkszentlszl this forti cation apparently belongs to the second phase of Late Bronze Age dated to the 9th and early 8th BC. Felstrkny-Vrhegy is so far the only site from which some information about the interior organisation can be obtained, since six rectangular houses of modest size were recovered close to the rampart in a street like grouping13. Large patches of clay and only very few post holes indicate that the houses were erected on sleeper beams with mud walls and had a roof with wooden rafters14. The absence of postholes in the other two aforementioned sites hints at a building technique, were the aboveground structures did not survive. This would have been the case for houses with wooden log-built walls. A comparable situation can be observed in contemporary settlements like Stillfried a. d. March in Lower Austria (HELLERSCHMID 2006), where a lot of pits but hardly any postholes were found.

11 Because of the differing terminology in Hungary and in Central Europe Early Iron Age in this case very likely means late Urn eld period.

12 MATUZ 1992; MATUZ NOVKI 2002, 90 g. 14; 127 g. 51; 131134 gs. 5558; 137138 gs. 6364.13 MATUZ 1992, 83. A similar structure can be observed in the Hallstatt hillfort of Smolenice-Molpr (DUEK

DUEK 1984; 1995; STEGMANN-RAJTR 1998; 2002).14 MATUZ NOVKI 2002, 136138 gs. 6264. Prduczs reconstruction is not convincing, especially since none

of the houses has been excavated completely.


Mtraszentimre:The prehistoric rampart on a 780 m (above sea level) high hill top near Mtraszentimre-gasvr in Heves county is 330 by 150 m (2,9 ha) large. According to Edit Matuz and gota Kllay (1993/1994) an excavation 250 m below this enclosure revealed traces of a settlement of the late Kyjatice culture madeup of a pit and a house complex (Fig. 3). The house inventory was preserved almost intact, as four large storage vessels and smaller pottery types, predominantly cups and bowls, could be reconstructed. Matuz compares this material with pre-Scythian burials of the Fzesabony-Mezcst-Group (MATUZ NOVKI 2002, 13; 62; 98 g. 22; 185186 g. 111112), but as will be shown below, the inventory (MATUZ NOVKI 2002, 185 g. 111,5) is later in date. Its interesting that Matuz and Kllay stress that especially the large storage vessels (Fig. 3.69) also have parallels in early Scythian materials (MATUZ KLLAY 1993/1994, 6465). Taking in mind that the Scythian Vekerzug culture is not manifest in the area before the middle of the 7th c. BC. This statement is rather remarkable, since it contradicts the whole argument put forward by Matuz in her other articles concerning hillfort occupation in north-eastern Hungary.

The outstanding position of Mtraszentimre-gasvr is also underlined by the fact that the excavated house and pit were located outside the actual rampart on a lower terrace of the hill. To my knowledge this is, next to Cserpfalu-Msz-tet (MATUZ NOVKI 2002, 11), where an excavation in 1960 with ve small trenches revealed Kyjatice pottery in and outside the forti cation, the only case of a suburban settlement so far discovered or excavated in the area.

This short review of the most important excavations15 makes it very clear that our information concerning the spatial organisation of the interior of the hillforts in Northeast Hungary is scarce and not satisfactory. Because of this, we can hardly comment on their economic organisation. Questions of social strati cation can therefore only be answered hypothetically. That the erection of an impressive rampart system would require central planning and a large population is an assumption, which can not be supported by the evidence of contemporary graves; which are hardly known. Judging from the environmental conditions we can only assume that animal husbandry, i.e. cattle or sheep herding, was one of the major factors in late Bronze Age economy in the hilly landscape of northwest Hungary as well as adjacent lower elevations. Gbor V. Szab has argued that contemporary Late Bronze Age Gva communities in the Alfld were involved in cattle herding on a larger scale16. What we do know, however on the basis of surveys, is the fact that at least two sites also possessed a contemporary settlement outside the ramparts. This offers the potential for a differentiated functional relation between the stronghold and the suburban settlement. In the eastern Carpathian Basin the tell site of Feudvar near Moorin in the Vojvodina has revealed a comparable picture for the Early Iron Age (HNSEL MEDOVI 1991; MEDOVI 1991; FALKENSTEIN 1998).

Moreover evidence of ritual activity within the settlements or at the slopes of the hills on which they lie, is attested by the presence of bronze hoards like the ones from Bkkszentlszl, Bkkaranyos-Fldvr, Benczrfalva-Major hegy and Szanda-Szanda hegy (MOZSOLICS 2000, pls. 57; see also SZAB 2009)17. So far a single hoard or up to four hoards were found in several strong hold sites (Fig. 2). The deposition of bronze hoards near to or even within a forti ed settlement re ects a general pattern which can also be observed in several sites in Transdanubia, in Moravia or Bavaria just to mention a few

15 A recent small scale rescue excavation in Mtraszls-Kirlydomb (TANK VADAY 2010) did at least for the Late Bronze Age (Piliny culture) occupation not reveal signi cant housing structures but again only pits (MATUZ NOVKI 2002, 120124 gs. 4448).

16 SZAB 1996, 56. See also BECKER 2000, BOROFFKA 2005 and METZNER-NEBELSICK 1998, 408.17 Szab mentions a couple of hill sites, where he recently discovered Bronze Age hoard nds by using a metal

detector for controlled excavations.


regions18. Hoarding practises offer an indirect evidence that forti ed settlements functioned as religious as well as political centres.

The evidence of nds, hillfort settlement activity after 800 BC?

If we take a closer look at the pottery revealed by surface collections or small scale excavations within the hillforts in the area in question, some new information can be gained from these materials, which were not recognised before or interpretated differently. This will shed new light on the discussion of hillfort occupation in eastern Hungary.

A major dif culty we are facing in addressing the question of settlement continuity beyond 800 BC is the problem of identifying Ha C1 domestic pottery. This dif culty is enhanced by the fact that radiocarbon dating between the rst decades of the 7th until the 5th centuries BC does not offer any help due to the so-called Hallstatt plateau of the calibration curve. Finally iron artefacts, which at least in southern Germany function as indicators for the Ha C1 period (Mindelheim phase), have been in use well before that time i.e. the second half of the 8th and the 7th centuries BC in the Carpathians including Transylvania. Therefore the dating of these artefacts, as recently published from the Slovakian cemetery of Cinobaa in the district of Poltr (FURMNEK MIT PAVELKOV 2010, 129 g. 9), mostly depends on stratigraphy or the nds associations with chronologically distinctive artefacts.

Recently shadows have been cast on the model of a cultural break in the Hungarian Plain after 800 BC, which was assumed as being triggered by members of the Fzesabony-Mezcst-Group and then later embodied by the people of Szentes-Vekerzug culture.

Especially one site in the lowlands of north-eastern Hungary has to catch our attention. In Nyregyhza Mandabokor (ISTVNOVITS 1997), located immediately south of the mountain fringes, a Scythian type settlement of the 6th c. BC with extraordinary nds was discovered. Not only does this excavation show that the people using Scythian type Szentes-Vekerzug material were not entirely mobile but also that they lived in settlements in which artefacts of high quality were produced. It also showed that next to the typically grey wheel turned pottery, a handmade pottery type was used in the settlement, which Eszter Istvnovits describes as representing Late Bronze Age Gva tradition (ISTVNOVITS 1997, 80). If this statement is veri ed in the nal publication, this will have great consequences for our view of the historical development of the Alfld and the adjacent mountain areas to the north in the late 8th and 7th c. BC Nndor Kalicz and Judit Kos have drawn our attention to a number of settlements south of Miskolc, such as Mezkvesd-Mocsolys. The pottery found in this lowland settlement can be called a mixture of graphite painted ware of the eastern Hallstatt culture (KALICZ KOS 1998, 426 g. 3; JEREM 1981) and pottery of local production, which also has parallels on the hillforts mentioned in this article or in Smolenice-Molpr and the lowland Late Hallstatt and Early Latne settlement of Sopron-Krautacker19. Therefore Mezkvesd-Mocsolys can be dated into the second half of the 7th c. BC or slightly later. This also points to a sedentary life style of the Vekerzug population of the Hungarian plain. Another recently excavated lowland settlement in Baks-Temetpart in the county of Csongrd produced a Ha B1 occupation phase belonging to the Gva culture (SZAB 1996, 6676 gs. 1121), but also a younger phase, which probably has lasted until the 8th BC (SZAB 2006, 152; 2008, 143).

18 Transdanubia: Velem St. Vid (VON MISKE 1908; MOZSOLICS 1950); Sghegy (PATEK 1968; MOZSOLICS 2000); Moravia: tramberk-Kotou (PODBORSK 1970); Lower Franconia: Bullenheimer Berg (DIEMER 1995; HAGL 2008).

19 ibid. 430 g. 7,13; 431 g. 8,14; 433 g. 10,13; DUEK DUEK 1995; JEREM 1986.


In eastern Hungary it is furthermore very dif cult to trace the development of pottery styles from the 9th/8th to the 7th centuries BC as it is possible for Transdanubia (STEGMANN-RAJTR 1992) and especially southwest Hungary and north-western Croatia (METZNER-NEBELSICK 2002, 88 ff.), where a gradual transformation of Late Urn eld to Hallstatt pottery styles can be observed in cemeteries with a continuous occupation from the Late Urn eld to the Early Hallstatt Period (Ha B2/3; Ha C1; Ha C2/D1). If we look at the pottery found in the aforementioned strongholds of Bkkszentlszl-Nagysnc, Felstrkny-Vrhegy, Mtraszentimre-gasvr and Szilvsvrad-Vrhegy we can however identify pottery types in all four sites which date later then 800 BC (Fig. 3.57). I will not repeat Edit Matuz arguments from her articles in full, most notably the one written in 2001, but rather present a somewhat different view.

Of large importance as seen by Matuz is a sherd of early Basarabi-Style with stamped S-dcor and hatched triangles from the hillfort of Percsny, Halyagos (MATUZ NOVKI 2002, 187 g. 113,1) because it is evidence for a new route of communication starting in the rst half of the 8th or maybe the late 9th c. BC20 to more distant areas to the southeast, i.e. the Banat and Iron Gate area21. A speci c pottery form an open bowl with a carinated pro le, a wide protruding rim and a conical body (Fig. 4) is crucial for my argument that there was Ha C1 i.e. 8th/7th century occupation of the aforementioned sites. The form can be called a type fossil of the Basarabi-Cultural Complex as well as the younger Ferigile-phase of the Iron Age in the Lower Danube region (HNSEL 1976; VULPE 1986; URSUIU 2002) (Fig. 8). Next to the Banat and Iron Gate area, where it has its origins, it is widely spread between Slavonia in eastern Croatia along the Danube up to eastern Austria in the west as well as Moldavia and the Middle Dnistr Region in the east.

The bowl from Felstrkny-Vrhegy (Fig. 5.1; MATUZ NOVKI 2002, 141 g. 67,1) and the sherds from comparable vessels from Szilvsvrad-Kelemenszke (Fig. 6.2; MATUZ 1999, 62 g. 137; 71 g. 3) and Bkkszentlszl-Nagyhegy (Fig. 7.2, 45; MATUZ 1994, 45 pl. 13,5; MATUZ NOVKI 2002, 159 g. 85,3) are the best proof for the existence of pottery of the late 8th or rather the rst half of the 7th c. BC on those sites. Further parallels can be found in Transdanubia, Lower Austria, the south-eastern Alps or even Moldavia and the Dnepr region (Fig. 4).

The second pottery type dating to the same period (8th to 7th c. BC) is a domestic pottery storage vessel or cooking pot in various variants, which has a slashed rims and band-shaped applications below the rim (Figs 5.46; 6.4; 7.3, 68)22. It has, as Matuz had pointed out, good parallels further south, in the Vojvodina and Syrmia as well as in the Lower Danube area (MATUZ 1994, 25; 53). The same holds true for the sites of the Basarabi-Cultural complex in Transylvania (Fig. 8; URSUIU 2002, gs. 12 ff.), there they represent the most common storage vessel type.

This pottery type is typical for Bosut IIIb after Predrag Medovi (1978) in Syrmia, which is equivalent to the classical Basarabi-Phase in the Banat and in Transylvania. It can be dated between the late 8th and the 7th c. BC (GUM 1993, 275 ff.; GUM 1995; URSUIU 2002, 179 ff.) and be regarded as contemporary with Ha C1 in the eastern Hallstatt culture as several nd associations with Basarabi pottery with complex patterns and large spiral motives indicate23. Again this type of storage vessel

20 I do not share the view of Olaf Drrer, who argues in favour of a higher date for the beginning of the Basarabi complex in the Iron Gate area in the 9th c. BC (DRRER 2008).

21 These contacts have been discussed thoroughly in another context (METZNER-NEBELSICK 2004; 2010).22 MATUZ 1994, pl. 12,2.6.7; 2001, 311 ff. gs. 2,3; 3; 4,13.23 For further comparisons see the hillfort of Teleac-Drmbar in central Transylvania (VASILIEV ALDEA

CIUGUDEAN 1991, 240 g. 44,5.12; CIUGUDEAN 2009) or for several sites in the Banat region in southwest Romania (GUM 1993, pls. 7174; 8788; 90; 92) or for southeast Hungary the settlement of Gorzsa-Major (SZAB 1987/1988); for the Hallstatt area see the latest comprehensive account: EIBNER 2001; see also Nebelsick 1997, 72 ff..


Fig. 3. Mtraszentimre: house inventory of the Hallstatt period (after MATUZ NOVKI 2002, g. 111112).


Fig. 4. Basarabi and Ferigile type bowls from various sites of the Carpathian Basin and beyond: 13: Basarabi, RO; 4: Slite, MO; 56: Ferigile, RO; Potela, SLO;

1012: Kleinklein, A (METZNER-NEBELSICK 2002, 141 g. 55, here with references).


is present in Felstrkny-Vrhegy as well as Bkkszentlszl-Nagysnc, Mtraszentimre-gasvr (MATUZ NOVKI 2002, 186 g. 112,7) and Szilvsvrad-Trksnc (MATUZ 1999, 80 g. 31,13).

The two-handled vessel from Felstrkny-Vrhegy (Fig. 5.3; MATUZ 2001, 311 g. 2,1; MATUZ NOVKI 2002, 140 g. 66,2) also has excellent parallels in the Basarabi repertoire and was already attributed by Matuz to the 8th c. BC (Fig. 8.4; URSUIU 2002, g. 16)24. 24 For a distribution of two-handled vessels/cantharoi see METZNER-NEBELSICK 2002, 126 g. 47.

Fig. 5. Felstrkny-Vrhegy: selection of Hallstatt period pottery (Ha C) (after MATUZ NOVKI 2002, detailed references in the text).

Fig. 6. Szilvsvrad-Trksnc (Kelemenszke): selection of Hallstatt period pottery (Ha C) (after MATUZ NOVKI 2002, detailed references in the text).


The most striking evidence for a Ha C occupation is the house inventory from Mtraszentimre-gasvr (Fig. 4), which contained large biconical vessels with characteristic lugs above the base (Fig. 4.69; MATUZ NOVKI 2002, 185 g. 111). They belong to a typological family with parallels in Vekerzug or Ciumbrud group burials (CHOCHOROWSKI 1985; FERENCZI 1965)25 as well as Hallstatt settlements like Smolenice-Molpr in western Slovakia (DUEK DUEK 1984; 1995). Matuz and Kllay (1993/1994) name parallels from Transylvania and quite rightly argue for a Hallstatt or Scythian period age of the house26. It remains unclear, why in the later publications this line of argumentation is not pursued or rather abandoned in favour of the drastic model of a pre-Scythian destructive impact on the settlement structure of north-eastern Hungary.

Further comparisons lead us even further south. The metope-like ornament on the bowl from house 1 from Mtraszentimre-gasvr (Fig. 4.3) has very good parallels on two-handled vessels/cantharoi

25 For a distribution of comparable vessels see: METZNER-NEBELSICK 2002, 115 g. 42; 505 f.26 VASILIEV 1980, 7 pl. 3; 27 pl. 4; MARINESCU 1984, gs. 4, 8, 10.

Fig. 7. Bkkszentlszl-Nagysnc: selection of Hallstatt period pottery (Ha C) (after MATUZ NOVKI 2002, detailed references in the text).

Fig. 8. Typical pottey forms from Basarabi-contexts (after Ursuiu 2002).


(Fig. 9.1; TRAJKOVI 2008, 186,10; METZNER-NEBELSICK 2002, 157 g. 63; 164 g. 69) from graves in the Hallstatt cemetery of Doroslovo-epfeld in the Vojvodina or the cemetery of Dalj-Busija in Slavonia (ibid. pl. 5671). Those cantharoi can be dated to the Ha C1/2 periods or horizon IIIb and IV of the Dalj-Southeast Pannonian group (ibid. 172 ff.). In Doroslovo the motiv also occurs on several large vessels (Kegelhalsgefe) (TRAJKOVI 2008, 195,4; 220,1).

These comparisons make it clear that house 1 from Mtraszentimre-gasvr does indeed belong to an even later phase of hilltop occupation, that is the middle or even second half of the 7th c. BC when the Vekerzug culture was established in the lowlands. To my knowledge it is so far the only hill site of such a late date in north-eastern Hungary. The feature of a house (inventory) has parallels again in the contemporary Smolenice-Molpr site in Slovakia.

To conclude

As a result of my comparisons it seems clear, that at least some of the Northeast Hungarian hillforts were not only contemporary with the pre-Scythian Fzesabony-Mezcst-Group in the lowlands, but also outlived a pre-Scythian steppe impact well into the rst half of the 7th c. BC and in the case of Mtraszentimre-gasvr likely even into the second half of the 7th c. BC.

In consequence the thesis of the general abandonment of all the hillforts of eastern Hungary at the end of the Urn eld Period around 800 BC (after Central European terminology) as a reaction to a pre-Scythian/Fzesabony-Mezcst-Group steppe impact can be rejected. The ramparts of the northeast Hungarian Hillforts do not show any signs of an eastern attack or destruction as this can be concluded later for the Hallstatt hillfort of Smolenice-Molpr in the Ha C2/D1 period by the massive amount of Scythian type arrow heads found close to the ramparts (HELLMUTH 2006). When eastern pre-Scythian

Fig. 9. Doroslovo-epfeld, Vojvodina, selected inventory from grave 7 (after TRAJKOVI 2008, 186187). 1: ca. 1:3; 2: ca. 1:4.


artefacts are found in hill site locations in north-eastern Hungary, they are either single nd deposits or were incorporated in the local late Bronze Age hoarding patterns that means into religiously motivated ritual behaviour of local people27.

What is evident and remarkable is a new cultural orientation towards the south and southeast of the Carpathian basin, i.e. the Banat, Transylvania or the Iron Gate region. Here the formation of the Basarabi-Cultural Complex, grounded in the tradition of older stamped ware pottery groups, can be seen as the emergence of a powerful political entity with wide ranging ties as far east as the Dnepr region and with exchange networks with the elites of the eastern Alpine Hallstatt culture between Carinthia and Lower Austria in the west (METZNER-NEBELSICK 1992; Nebelsick 1997; EIBNER 2001). This new cultural orientation may at least in some areas nonetheless coincide with a major drop in settlement activity in general. A pollen pro le from the Kis-Mohs-Lake north of Miskolc (WILLIS SMEGI et al. 1998), for instance, indicates a substantial degradation impact, coinciding with a depletion of beech between 1200 and 800 BC and a decrease of settlement activity after 800 BC. As I have argued before (METZNER-NEBELSICK 1998; 2010) the degradation processes resulting from the overexploitation of wood, need not be seen as caused by intense building activity alone28. Although in the 8th c. BC the heyday of hillfort settlement activity seems to be over, it is interesting to note that some strongholds obviously did survive, maybe on a smaller scale.

Very often scholars dealing with this material overlook the fact that the existing ramparts may have been used for some time after their erection, like for example in Sopron-Burgstall in north-western Hungary29. Further to the north sites located on higher elevations were also in use during the Ha C1 period, like the Kyjatice cemetery of Cinobaa near Poltr in Slovakia (FURMNEK MIT PAVELKOV 2010, 125). Most strikingly here is the evidence of a number of iron artefacts30. Hillforts with an occupation in the 8th and 7th centuries BC can also be named, like Tera-Lys str, for which Elena Miroayov stressed a cultural link with the Babadag-Basarabi-koine (2010)31.

The evidence so far, however scarce, maybe interpreted in the following fashion. The rather dense net of Late Urn eld forti ed settlements in the mountainous areas of the northern Carpathian fringes in Hungary underwent a signi cant change. If only a few sites or the majority continued to exist into the 7th c. BC, remains to be tested by excavations. For the discussed four examples that is the case, although in slightly different ways. The reason for this continued settlement activity may have been the exploitation and processing of iron ore as in Cinobaa or some other yet unrevealed functions. At least for the southeast Alpine sites of Kleinklein in Styria or various hillforts in Slovenian Dolenjsko it can be assumed that iron production formed one major aspect of the economical importance and depending political power of the communities involved.

27 For example the Szanda hoard (METZNER-NEBELSICK 2002, pl. 133134) or a dagger of Pjatigorsk type from the Mtra region (KEMENCZEI 2005, pl. 48 G)

28 The increase in forti cations according to WILLIS SMEGI et al. (1998) points again to a historical interpretation in favour of political unrest. But since this process started as early as around 1200 BC when according to MATUZ NOVKI (2002) intensive forti cations were not a prominent feature, other reasons like metal exploiting and manufacturing processes are a more likely model to explain the feature of the Kis-Mohs-Lake pollen pro le. Further archaeological as well as palynological research however is needed to con rm this view. A yet unpublished pollen pro le in the ore rich mountains near Lpu and Biu in northwest Romania supports such a hypothesis for the beginning of the 1st mill. BC (multidisciplinary research project under my supervision; pollen pro le by Michael Peters, LMU Mnchen).

29 Here the rampart was built in the late Urn eld period but continued to be used into the Ha C1 period and in fact was again enhanced in the late Latne period (PATEK 1982).

30 A hillfort and a settlement are recorded but remain yet to be investigated.31 She also noticed that a presumed gap of settlement occupation in the Ha C period may be explained by the

dif culty to detect pottery of this period (MIROAYOV 1987, 148).


The model proposed in this article may change our view on the cultural development in north-eastern Hungary at the transition to the Early Iron Age. Following this proposal, it seems to be more in tune with the west at least as far as an occupation in Ha C1 is concerned. A cultural divide remains yet obvious. The area clearly does not belong to the east Hallstatt world, with its hill site centres of power and huge tumulus cemeteries as status markers as well as lasting manifestations of an ancestral cult of the ruling elites and their dependants. In north-eastern Hungary, like in many areas of the distribution of the Basarabi Cultural-Complex or indeed the preceding Gva Culture, graves are scarce or missing altogether.

Secondly it must be stressed that a major change or even break occurs in the second half of the 7th c. BC with the formation of the Vekerzug and other groups with a steppe-oriented material culture. Secondly an expansion of the Basarabi Cultural Complex towards the north can be ascertained32. After that, except for Mtraszentimre-gasvr, hill site occupation can so far no longer be attested. At that time and in the early 6th c. BC the Vekerzug and other culturally similarly organised groups33 became the dominant political power in the eastern Carpathian Basin. Their pastoral life style, based in the lowlands of the Danubian Plain, may not have tolerated a hill fort occupation and power base in their immediate neighbourhood as the destruction of the even more distant site of Smolenice-Molpr indicates. Hill site occupation only started again with the expansion of the Latne culture in the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC (ALMSSY 2002), again changing the political constellation.

Bibliography

ALMSSY, K. 2002Some new data on the Scythian-Celtic relationship. In: E. Jerem M. Schnfelder G. Wieland (Hrsg.), Nord-Sd, Ost-West. Kontakte whrend der Eisenzeit in Europa. Akten der Internationalen Tagungen der AG Eisenzeit in Hamburg und Sopron 2002. 925. Archaeolingua 17. Budapest, Archaeolingua.

BECKER, C. 2000Subsistenzstrategien whrend der frhen Metallzeiten im zentralkarpatische Raum neue archozoologische Daten zur Coofeni- und Monteoru Kultur. Prhistorische Zeitschrift 75, 6392.

BOROFFKA, N. 2005Siedlungsmuster im bronzezeitlichen Siebenbrgen Am Beispiel des Gebiets um Aiud, jud. Alba. In: B. Horejs R. Jung E. Kaiser B. Teran (Hrsg.), Interpretationsraum Bronze zeit. Bernhard Hnsel von seinen Schlern gewidmet. 125142. Universittsforschungen zur Prhistorischen Archologie 121. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt Verlag.

32 Recent excavations in the forti ed settlement of imleu Silvaniei near Zalu in Northwest Romania at the Crasna river revealed a multiphased occupation of the site, ranging from the Gva Culture, a fully developed Basarabi-phase (Ha C) as well as a Ha C2/D phase with Ferigile as well as Vekerzug forms (lecture by Daniel V. Sana and Ioan Bejinariu June 2011 at the conference in Satu Mare The Beginnings of the First Millenium BC in the Tisa Plain and Transylvania. The Gva Culture). This is so far the most northwestern Basarabi-settlement ever discovered. It is roughly only one hundred kilometres apart from the northeast Hungarian mountains in question here. The area is furthermore adjacent to the Nyrsg/Nyr Plain with the mentioned Vekerzug settlements. For a summary of D. V. Sanas doctoral dissertation, in which the site of imleu Silvaninei Observator and others with Basarabi pottery are mentioned, see SANA 2010.

33 NEBELSICK 2003; also TERAN 1998 for the southeast Alpine region.


BUDINSK-KRIKA, V. MIROAYOV, E. 1992Tera-Lys str Sdlisko z neskorej doby bronzovej a haltatskej (pokus o chronologick a kultrne urenie). Slovensk Archeolgia 40, 4776.

CHOCHOROWSKI, J. 1985Die Rolle der Vekerzug-Kultur (VK) im Rahmen der skythischen Ein sse in Mitteleuropa. Prhistorische Zeitschrift 60, 204271.

CIUGUDEAN, H. 2009Bemerkungen zur Chronologie der befestigten Siedlung von Teleac. Analele Banatului S. N. Arheologie-Istorie 17, 6775. Timioara, Muzeul Banatului.

DIEMER, G. 1995Der Bullenheimer Berg. Materialhefte zur Bayerischen Vorgeschichte Reihe A 70. Kallmnz/Opf., Verlag Lassleben.

DOBIAT, C. 1990Der Burgstallkogel von Kleinklein I. Die Ausgrabungen der Jahre 19821984. Marburger Studien zur Vor- u. Frhgeschichte 13. Marburg.

DRRER, O. 2008Frhe Fibelformen und der Beginn der Basarabikultur in der Umgebung des Eisernen Tores. Germania 86, 541589.

DULAR, J. TECCO HVALA, S. 2007South-Eastern Slovenia in the Early Iron Age. Opera Instituti Archaeologici Sloveniae 12. Ljubljana, Zaloba ZRC.

DUEK, M. DUEK, S. 1984Smolenice-Molpr Befestigter Frstensitz der Hallstattzeit I. Materialia Archaeologica Slovaca. Nitra, Archeologick stav Slovenskej Akadmie Vied.

DUEK, M. DUEK, S. 1995Smolenice-Molpr Befestigter Frstensitz der Hallstattzeit II. Materialia Archaeologica Slovaca. Nitra, Archeologick stav Slovenskej Akadmie Vied.

EIBNER, A. 2001Der Donau-Drau-Save-Raum im Spiegel gegenseitiger Ein unahme und Kommunikation in der frhen Eisenzeit. Zentralorte entlang der Argonautenstrae. In: A. Lippert (Hrsg.), Die Drau-, Mur- und Raab-Region im 1. vorchristlichen Jahrtausend. Akten des Internationalen und Interdisziplinren Symposiums vom 26. bis 29. April 2000 in Bad Radkersburg. 181190. Bonn, Rudolf Habelt Verlag.

FALKENSTEIN, F. 1998Feudvar II. Die Siedlungsgeschichte des Titeler Plateaus. Prhistorische Archologie in Sdosteuropa 14. Kiel, Oetker-Voges Verlag.

FERENCZI, . 1965Cimitriul scitic de la Ciumbrud (Partea 1). Acta Musei Napocensis 2, 77105.

FURMNEK, V. MIT, V. PAVELKOV, J. 2010The burial ground of the Kyjatice culture in Cinobaa (Slovakia). In: Sz. Guba K. Tank (eds), Rgrl kell kezdennk Studia archaeologica in honorem Pauli Patay Rgszeti tanulmnyok Ngrd megybl Patay Pl tiszteletre. 125136. Szcsny.


GABROVEC, ST. 1994Stina I. Siedlungsausgrabungen. Catalogii et monographiae 28. Ljubjana, Narodni Muzej.

GANYNA, O. D. 1984 (, . .)Poselennja rannoskifsko doby poblyzu s. Zalissja. ( . .) Archeolohija () 47, 6879. Kyv ().

GERLACH, ST. 1998Urnenfelderzeitliche Hhensiedlungen Nordbayerns in ihrem siedlungsgeschichtlichen Zusammen-hang. In: K. Schmotz (Hrsg.), Vortrge des 16. Niederbayerischen Archologentages. 125156. Rahden/Westf., Verlag Marie Leidorf.

GUM, M. 1993Civilizaia primei epoci a erului n sud-vestul Romniei. Bibliotheca Thracologica 4. Bucureti.

GUM, M. 1995The end of the Bronze Age and the beginning of the Early Iron Age in south-western Romania, western Serbia and north-western Bulgaria. A short review. Thraco-Dacica 16, 99137.

HNSEL, B. 1976Beitrge zur regionalen und chronologischen Gliederung der lteren Hallstattzeit an der unteren Donau. Beitrge zur ur- und frhgeschichtlichen Archologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraums 1617. Bonn, Rudolf Habelt Verlag.

HNSEL, B. MEDOVI, P. 1991Vorbericht ber die jugoslawisch-deutschen Ausgrabungen in der Siedlung von Feudvar bei Moorin (Gem. Titel, Vojvodina) von 19861990. Bronzezeit Vorrmische Eisenzeit. Bericht der Rmisch-Germanischen Kommission 72, 45203.

HAGL, M. 2008Ein urnenfelderzeitlicher Depotfund vom Bullenheimer Berg in Franken (Hort F). Bayerische Vorgeschichtsbltter Beiheft 19. Mnchen, Verlag C. H. Beck.

HANSEN, S. 1991Studien zu den Metalldeponierungen whrend der Urnenfelderzeit im Rhein-Main-Gebiet. Universittsforschungen zur Prhistorischen Archologie 5. Bonn, Rudolf Habelt Verlag.

HANSEN, S. 1994Studien zu den Metalldeponierungen der lteren Urnenfelderzeit zwischen Rhnetal und Karpatenbecken. Universittsforschungen zur Prhistorischen Archologie 21. Bonn, Rudolf Habelt Verlag.

HELLERSCHMID, I. 2006Die urnenfelder-/hallstattzeitliche Wallanlage von Stillfried an der March. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 19691989 unter besonderer Bercksichtigung des Kulturwandels an der Epochengrenze Urnenfelder-/Hallstattkultur. Wien, Verlag der sterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

HELLMUTH, A. 2006Pfeilspitzen. Untersuchungen zu den sogenannten skythischen Pfeilspitzen aus der befestigten Hhensiedlung von Smolenice-Molpr. Universittsforschungen zur Prhistorischen Archologie 128. Bonn, Rudolf Habelt Verlag.

HONTI, Sz. 1992Archologische Forschungen im Jahre 1989, Nagyberki-Szalacska. Archaelogiai rtest 119, 100.


HORK, M. STEGMANN-RAJTR, S. 2008Osdlenie strednho ponitria v neskorej dobe bronzovej a vasnej dobe eleznej vyuitie GIS-analz. Besiedlung am Mittellauf der Nitra whrend der Sptbronze- und Frheisenzeit: Ergebnisse einer GIS-Analyse. tudijn Zvesti Archeologickho stavu Akademie Vied 43, 4352.

ISTVNOVITS, E. 1997Nyregyhza-Manda-bokor. Iron Age settlement from the 5th4th century B.C. In: T. Kovcs A. Anders P. Raczky (eds), Paths into the Past. Rescue Excavations on the M3 Motorway. 80. Budapest, Magyar Nemzeti Mzeum, Etvs Lornd Tudomnyegyetem Rgszettudomnyi Intzet.

JEREM, E. 1981Zur Spthallstatt- und Frhlatnezeit in Transdanubien. In: Die Hallstattkultur. Bericht ber das Symposium in Steyr 1980 aus Anla der Internationalen Ausstellung des Landes Obersterreich. 105136. Linz, Obersterreichischer Landesverlag.

JEREM, E. 1986Bemerkungen zur Siedlungsgeschichte der Spthallstatt- und Frhlatnezeit im Ostalpenraum. In: E. Jerem (Hrsg.), Hallstatt-Kolloquium Veszprm 1984. 107123; 363365. Mitteilungen des Archologischen Instituts der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften Beiheft 3. Budapest.

JEREM, E. LIPPERT, A. 1996 (Hrsg.)Die Osthallstattkultur. Akten des Internationalen Symposiums, Sopron, 10.14. Mai 1994. Archaeolingua 7. Budapest, Archeolingua.

JEREM, E. URBAN, O. H. 2000Hhensiedlungen Befestigungen Zentralsiedlungen. Prozesse der Urbanisierung im Donau-Karpaten-Raum. In: V. Guichard S. Sievers O. H. Urban (Hrsg.), Les processus durbanisation lge du fer. Eisenzeitliche Urbanisationsprozesse. Tagung Glux-en-Glenne 1998. 157164. Collection Bibracte 4. Glux-en-Glenne, Centre Archologique Europen du Mont-Beuvray.

KALICZ, N. KOS, J. 1998Siedlungsfunde der Frheisenzeit aus Nordostungarn. In: B. Hnsel J. Machnik (Hrsg.), Das Karpatenbecken und die osteuropische Steppe. Nomadenbewegungen und Kulturaustausch in den vorchristlichen Metallzeiten (4000500 v. Chr.). Symposium Mogilany 1995. 423436. Prhistorische Archologie in Sdosteuropa 12. Mnchen Rahden in Westf., Verlag Marie Leidorf.

KAUBA, M. LEVICKIJ, O. 2009 (KA, . , .) ceam pae oapo cepoo epa Boco-apacoo peoa (ber die Folgen der frhen scheibengedrehten Keramik der stlichen Karpatenregion). In: Capoci ceooo popoop i Kpy. Maepia oepe c-capa apxeo ( 110-pi apo . M. paoa). . 247260.

KEMENCZEI, T. 1984Die Sptbronzezeit Nordostungarns. Archaeologia Hungarica 51. Budapest.

KEMENCZEI, T. 2005Funde ostkarpatenlndischen Typs im Karpatenbecken. Prhistorische Bronzefunde (PBF) XX: 10. Stuttgart, Steiner Verlag.


MARZ, B. 1996Pcs-Jakabhegy Ausgrabungsergebnisse und die Fragen der Frhhallstattkultur in Sdost-pannonien. In: E. Jerem A. Lippert (Hrsg.), Die Osthallstattkultur. Akten des Internationalen Symposiums, Sopron, 10.14. Mai 1994. 255265. Archaeolingua 7. Budapest, Archaeolingua.

MARINESCU, G. 1984Die jngere Hallstattzeit in Nordostsiebenbrgen. Dacia 28, 4783.

MATUZ, E. D. 1992A kyjaticei kultra fldvra Felstrkny-Vrhegyen (Die Erdburg der Kyjatice-Kultur auf dem Berg Felstrkny-Vrhegy). Agria 27/28, 584.

MATUZ, E. D. 1994A Kyjaticei kultra fldvra Bkkszentlszl-Nagysncon (Erdburg der Kyjatice-Kultur in Bkkszentlszl-Nagysnc). A Herman Ott Mzeum vknyve 32, 954.

MATUZ, E. D. 1999A Kyjatice kultra fldvra Szilvsvrad-Trksncon. (Der Erdwall der Kyjatice-Kultur in Szilvsvrad-Trksnc). Agria 35, 584.

MATUZ, E. D. 2001Archologische Denkmler der stlichen und sdlichen Beziehungen im Fundmaterial der Erdwlle der Kyjatice-Kultur in Nordungarn. In: C. Kacs (Hrsg.), Der nordkarpatische Raum in der Bronzezeit. Symposium Baia Mare 7.10. Oktober 1998. 299313. Muzeul Judeean Maramure Bibliotheca Marmatia 1. Baia Mare, Editura Cornelius.

MATUZ, E. D. KLLAY, . SZ. 1993/1994Ks bronzkori-kora vaskori teleplsrszlet Mtraszentimre-gasvron (Ein sptbronzezeitliches, frheisenzeitliches Siedlungsdetail in Mtraszentimre-gasvr). Agria. Az Egri Dob Istvn Vrmzeum vknyve 29/30, 4365.

MATUZ, E. D. NOVKI, GY. 2002Sptbronzezeitliche, frheisenzeitliche Erdwlle in Nordungarn. Inventaria praehistorica Hungariae 10. Budapest, Magyar Nemzeti Mzeum.

MEDOVI, P. 1978Naselja starijeg gvozdenog doba u jugoslovenskom Podunavlu. Dissertationes et monographiae 22. Beograd.

MEDOVI, P. 1991Die eisenzeitliche Besiedlung und ihre Funde. In: B. Hnsel P. Medovi (Hrsg.), Vorbericht ber die jugoslawisch-deutschen Ausgrabungen in der Siedlung von Feudvar bei Moorin (Gem. Titel, Vojvodina) von 19861990. Bronzezeit Vorrmische Eisenzeit. Bericht der Rmisch-Germanischen Kommission 72, 144151.

METZNER-NEBELSICK, C. 1992Gefe mit basaraboider Ornamentik aus Frg. In: A. Lippert K. Spindler (Hrsg.), Festschrift zum 50 jhrigen Bestehen des Instituts fr Ur- u. Frhgeschichte der Leopold-Franzens-Universitt Innsbruck. 349383. Universittsforschungen zur Prhistorischen Archologie 8. Bonn, Rudolf Habelt Verlag.

METZNER-NEBELSICK, C. 1998Abschied von den Thrako-Kimmeriern? Neue Aspekte der Interaktion zwischen karpaten-lndischen Kulturgruppen der spten Bronze- und frhen Eisenzeit mit der osteuropischen


Steppenkoine. In: B. Hnsel J. Machnik (eds), Das Karpatenbecken und die osteuropische Steppe. Nomadenbewegungen und Kulturaustausch in den vorchristlichen Metallzeiten (4000500 v. Chr.). Symposium Mogilany 1995. 361422. Prhistorische Archologie in Sdosteuropa 12. Mnchen/Rahden in Westf., Verlag Marie Leidorf.

METZNER-NEBELSICK, C. 2002Der thrako-kimmerische Formenkreis aus der Sicht der Urnenfelder- und Hallstattzeit im sdstlichen Pannonien. Vorgeschichtliche Forschungen 23. Rahden/Westf., Verlag Marie Leidorf.

METZNER-NEBELSICK, C. 2004Studien zur bronze- und frheisenzeitlichen Herrschaftssymbolik zwischen Skandinavien, Karpatenbecken, Kaukasus und den Steppen Eurasiens am Beispiel des Stilkreises von Michakw. Habilitationsschrift Berlin 2004. In preparation

METZNER-NEBELSICK, C. 2010Aspects of mobility and migration in the eastern Carpathian Basin and adjacent areas in the early Iron Age (10th7th centuries B.C.). In: K. Dzigielewski M. S. Przybya A. Gawlik (eds), Migration in Bronze and Early Iron Age Europe. 121151. Prace Archeologiczne 63. Krakw: Ksigarnia Akademicka.

MIROAYOVA, E. 1987Problematika osdlenia vchodnho Slovenska v dobe haltatskej (Settlement of East Slovakia in the Hallstatt Period). Slovensk Archeologia 35, 107164.

MIROAYOVA, E. 2010In uence of foreign environment on the cultural developement of the upper Tisza Regions in the Hallstatt period. In: B. Gediga W. Piotrovski (Hrsg.), Rolle der wichtigsten Kulturzentren in der Gestaltung des Kulturbildes Mitteleuropas in den frhen Perioden der Eisenzeit. 175188. Biskupin Wrocaw.

VON MISKE, K. 1908Die prhistorische Ansiedlung Velem St. Vid. Wien.

MOZSOLICS, A. 1950Der Goldfund von Velem-Szentvid. Ein Beitrag zur Metallkunst der lteren Hallstattzeit. Praehistorica 1. Basel.

MOZSOLICS, A. 2000Bronzefunde aus Ungarn. Depotfundhorizonte Hajdbszrmny, Romnd und Bkkszentlszl. Prhistorische Archologie in Sdosteuropa 17. Kiel, Oetker-Voges Verlag.

MLLER-KARPE, H. 1959Beitrge zur Chronologie der Urnenfelderkultur nrdlich und sdlich der Alpen. Rmisch-Germanische Forschungen 22. Berlin, de Gruyter.

NEBELSICK, L. 1997Die Kalenderberggruppe der Hallstattzeit am Nordostalpenrand. In: L. D. Nebelsick A. Eibner E. Lauermann J.-W. Neugebauer (Hrsg.), Hallstattkultur im Osten sterreichs. 9128. Wissenschaftliche Schriftenreihe Niedersterreich 106/107/108/109. St. Plten, NP Buchverlag.

NEBELSICK, L. 2003Ein Kontext fr den Goldhort von Witaszkowo/Vettersfelde (A context for the gold hoard from Witaszkowo/Vettersfelde). In: M. Flashar (Hrsg.), Adolf Furtwngler. Der Archologe. 6379. Schriften der Archologischen Sammlung Freiburg 8. Feiburg/Br.


NOVKI, GY. BARZ, CS. 2000skori s kzpkori erdtett telepek, vrak Heves megye Mtrn kvli terletn. Agria. Az Egri Dob Istvn Vrmzeum vknyve 36, 546.

NOVKI, GY. SRKZY, S. FELD, I. 2007Borsod-Abaj-Zempln megye vrai az skortl a kuruc korig. Magyarorszg vrainak topogr ja 1. Budapest Miskolc, Castrum Bene Egyeslet Herman Ott Mzeum.

NOVKI, GY. BARZ, CS. DNES, J. FELD, I. SRKZY, S. 2009Heves megye vrai az skortl a kuruc korig. Magyarorszg vrainak topogr ja 2. Budapest Eger, Castrum Bene Egyeslet Herman Ott Mzeum.

PARE, Ch. 1998Zum bergang von der Bronze- zur Eisenzeit in Mitteleuropa, I. Jahrbuch Rmisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum Mainz 45, 293433.

PARZINGER, H. STEGMANN-RAJTR, S. 1988Smolenice-Molpr und der Beginn skythischer Sachkultur in der Sdwestslowakei. Prhistorische Zeitschrift 63, 162178.

PATEK, E. 1968Die Urnenfelderkultur in Transdanubien. Archaeologia Hungarica 44. Budapest.

PATEK, E. 1973Bericht ber die Ausgrabung des sptbronzezeitlichen Burgwalls von Trksnc bei Szilvsvrad. Mitteilungen des Archologischen Instituts der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 4, 2530.

PATEK, E. 1982Neue Untersuchungen auf dem Burgstall bei Sopron. Bericht der Rmisch-Germanischen Kommission 63, 105177.

PATEK, E. 1993Westungarn in der Hallstattzeit. Acta humaniora 7. Weinheim.

PODBORSK, V. 1970Sdmhren in der Sptbronzezeit und an der Schwelle zur Eisenzeit. Brno, Universita J. E. Purkyn.

RIND, M. M. 1999Der Frauenberg oberhalb Kloster Weltenburg. I: Hhenbefestigungen der Bronze- und Urnenfelder-zeit. Regensburger Beitrge zur Prhistorischen Archologie 6. Bonn, Rudolf Habelt Verlag.

ROMSAUER, P. 1999Zur Frage der Westgrenze der Mezcst-Gruppe. In: E. Jerem I. Poroszlai (eds), Archaeology of the Bronze and Iron Age. Proceedings of the International Archaeological Conference Szzhalombatta, 37 October 1996. 167176. Archaeolingua 9. Budapest, Archaeolingua.

SANA, D. V. 2010Early Iron Age in imleu Depression and Surrounding Areas. Gva Type Discoveries. PhD thesis abstract. Alba Iulia. http://www.uab.ro/upload/1716_Daniel%20Sana.%20Rezumatul%20tezei.ENG.pdf


SMIRNOVA, G. I. 2001 (, . .)Zakluitelnyj sezon rabot na ranneskifskom poselenii u s. Dolinjany ( . ). Archeologieski Sbornik St. Peterburg (. .-) 35, 5973.

SMOLNIK, R. 1996Der Burgstallkogel bei Kleinklein II. Die Keramik der vorgeschichtlichen Siedlung. Marburg.

STEGMANN-RAJTR, S. 1992Sptbronze- und frheisenzeitliche Fundgruppen des mittleren Donaugebietes. Bericht der Rmisch-Germanischen Kommission 73, 29179.

STEGMANN-RAJTR, S. 1998Spinnen und Weben in Smolenice-Molpr Ein Beitrag zum wirtschaftlichen und religis-kultischen Leben der Bewohner des hallstattzeitlichen Frstensitzes. Slovensk Archeologia 46, 263287.

STEGMANN-RAJTR, S. 2000Kulturelle Beziehungen des hallstattzeitlichen Burgwalls Smolenice-Molpr. Pravk N.. 10, 457471.

STEGMANN-RAJTR, S. 2002Bronzov hroty pov v doby haltatskej z hradiska ibrica (Hallstattzeitliche Bronzepfeilspitzen vom Burgwall von ibrica). tudijn Zvesti Archeologickho stavu Slovenskej Akademie Vied 35, 4551.

STEGMANN-RAJTR, S. 2004Die slowakisch-deutschen Ausgrabungen auf der befestigten Hhensiedlung titre-ibrica (K. Nitra). 503522. Archeolok Vzkumi Jin echy. Suppl. 1. esk Budjovice.

SZAB, G. 1987/1988Kora vaskori bekarcolt, bepecstelt dszts kermia leletek Hdmezvsrhely Gorzsa-Cukormajor lelhelyen (Frheisenzeitliche, eingeritzte, eingestempelte Keramikfunde aus Hdmezvsrhely Gorzsa-Cukormajor). Archaeologiai rtest 114/115, 8699.

SZAB, G. V. 1996A Csorva-Csoport s a Gva-Kultra kutatsnak problmi nhny Csongrd megyei leletegyttes alapjn. Mra Ferenc Mzeum vknyve Studia Archaeologica 2, 9109.

SZAB, G. V. 2006Baks, Temetpart (Csongrd megye). In: Rgszeti Kutatsok Magyarorszgon Archaeological investigations in Hungary 2006 [2007]. 152.

SZAB, G. V. 2008Baks, Temetpart (Csongrd megye). In: Rgszeti Kutatsok Magyarorszgon Archaeological investigations in Hungary 2008 [2009]. 143.

SZAB, G. V. 2009Fmkeres mszeres kutatsok kelet-magyarorszgi ks bronzkori s kora vaskori lelhelyeken. Beszmol az ELTE Rgszettudomnyi Intzete ltal indtott bronzkincs kutat program 2009. vi eredmnyeirl (Metal detection investigations at Eastern Hungarian Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age sites. Report on the results of the bronze hoard exploration project of the Institute of Archeology of ELTE in 2009). In: Rgszeti Kutatsok Magyarorszgon Archaeological investigations in Hungary 2009 [2010]. 1938. Budapest.


TANK, K. VADAY, A. 2010Ks bronzkori s ks vaskori telepleletek Mtraszls-Kirlydombrl. In: Sz. Guba K. Tank (szerk.), Rgrl kell kezdennk Studia archaeologica in honorem Pauli Patay Rgszeti tanulmnyok Ngrd megybl Patay Pl tiszteletre. 137194. Szcsny.

TERAN, B. 1990Stareja elezna doba na Slovenskem tajerskem. The Early Iron Age in Slovenian Styria. Catalogi et monographiae 25. Ljubljana, Narodni Muzej.

TERAN, B. 1998Auswirkungen des skythisch geprgten Kulturkreises auf die hallstattzeitlichen Kulturgruppen Pannoniens und des Ostalpenraumes In: B. Hnsel J. Machnik (eds), Das Karpatenbecken und die osteuropische Steppe. Nomadenbewegungen und Kulturaustausch in den vorchristlichen Metallzeiten (4000500 v. Chr.). Symposium Mogilany 1995. 511560. Prhistorische Archologie in Sdosteuropa 12. Mnchen Rahden in Westf., Verlag Marie Leidorf.

TRACHSEL, M. 2004Untersuchungen zur relativen und absoluten Chronologie der Hallstattzeit. Universittsforschungen zur prhistorischen Archologie 104. Bonn, Rudolf Habelt Verlag.

TRAJKOVI, D. 2008epfeld nekropola starijeg gvozdenog doba kod Doroslovo Early Iron Age necropolis at Doroslova. Sombor, Gradskij Muzej.

URBAN, O. 2011Besiedeln Befestigen Beherrschen. Der Braunsberg ein (vor)keltisches Zentrum an der Donau. Archologie in sterreich 22/1, 5469.

URSUIU, A. 2002Etapa mijlocie a primei vrste a erului n Transilvania (cercetrile de la Barnadea, com. Bahnea, jud. Mure.). Cluj-Napoca.

VASILIEV, V. 1980Sciii Agatri pe teritoriul Romniei. Cluj-Napoca, Editura Dacia.

VASILIEV, V. ALDEA, I. A. CIUGUDEAN, H. 1991Civilzaia dacic timpurie n aria intracarpatic a Romniei. Contribuii arheologice: Aezarea forti cat de la Teleac. Cluj-Napoca, Editura Dacia.

VULPE, A. 1986Zur Entstehung der geto-dakischen Zivilisation. Die Basarabi-Kultur. Dacia N. S. 30, 4989.

WILLIS, K. J. SMEGI, P. BRAUN, M. BENNETT, K. D. TTH, A. 1998Prehistoric land degradation in Hungary: who, how and why? Antiquity 72, 101113.

Metzner Nebelsick

Documents

Transcript of Metzner Nebelsick