179185.

GRAVES IN THE KRS CULTURE DISTRIBUTION

AREA IN HUNGARY
Tibor Paluch
Mra Ferenc Museum, 6720 Szeged, Roosevelt tr 13, Hungary; paluch.tibor@mfm.u-szeged.hu

Krs culture burials in Hungary had been discussed by

several authorities including Jnos Banner (1927; 1932, 45;
1936, 272), Ida Kutzin (1944, 9397) and Jzsef Csalog
(1965, 2425) before the first detailed summary was published by Ott Trogmayer (1968; 1969). Other synthetic
work followed only over thirty years later (Paluch 2004;
2007). During the short time following these recent publications 55 additional burials were found at seven sites. This
means that the number of 130 previously known Krs culture burials originating from 33 sites (Paluch 2007, 247) increased by almost thirty percent. This study is intended to
integrate information offered by the newly discovered
graves within the entire set. Graves recovered at the settlement of Szolnok-Szanda will be discussed for the first
time.1 (Concerning the burial recovered at Nagykr-Tsz
gymlcss see the study by Pl Raczky in this volume)

archaeological aspects of the burials are discussed in this

paper.
During the course of excavations nine sets of human remains were recovered that may be dated to the Early Neolithic. Seven of the nine entries may be considered pro
forma burials:
Grave 1 (Fig. 1. 1)
Fragmentary skull and postcranial skeleton of an Inf II
Juv. aged child. The body was placed on its right side in a
contracted position oriented eastwest. His grave goods included a bracelet made of lignit worn around the left wrist.
Grave 2 (Fig. 1. 2)
Fragmentary skull and postcranial skeleton of a 68
years old child. The body was placed on its right side in a
contracted position oriented southeastnorthwest. No grave
goods were found.
Grave 3 (Fig. 1. 3)
This incomplete skeleton was found under the rubble in
House 2. The body of a 4046 years old gracile woman was
placed on its left side in a contracted position oriented north/
northeastsouth/southwest. No grave goods were found.
Objects in the house may be seen as part of the grave furniture since they may have been left behind on purpose when
the house was set on fire as part of the burial rite (Raczky
1982a, 19).
Grave 4 (Fig. 1. 4)
Postcranial skeleton of a 5157 years old woman (the
skull is missing). The body was placed on its right side in a
contracted position oriented westeast into pit No. 5. No
grave goods were found.
Grave 5 (Fig. 1. 5)
Relatively well-preserved skeleton of a 6170 years old
woman. The body was placed on its right side in a contracted position oriented southnorth into the pit No. 5. No
grave goods were added.
Grave 7 (Fig. 1. 6)2
Heavily damaged postcranial skeleton of a 3746 years
old male placed on its left side in a contracted position ori-

EARLY NEOLITHIC GRAVES FROM

SZOLNOK-SZANDA
In 19771978, archaeological excavations took place at
the site of Szolnok-Szanda-Tenysziget-Dersi-gt (Kalicz
& Raczky 1978a; 1978b). The Krs culture settlement discovered was excavated over a surface of 340 m2. Fifty
square metres of this area comprised of test trenches, while
the rest could be uncovered as a single, contiguous square
(Kalicz & Raczky 1978a, 25). In addition to the ruins of six
early neolithic houses and other settlement features seven
burials were brought to light at this site (Kalicz & Raczky
1978b, 274; Raczky 1982b, 1015). Although preliminary
reports have already been published (Kalicz & Raczky
1981, 1982; Raczky 1988, 1426) a detailed description of
the site is provided in this volume (Raczky in this volume).
In relation to Grave 3 found under the layer of rubble representing House 2, the excavator described a ritual during
which the burial is taking place inside the house (Raczky
1982a; 19821983). Human remains from these graves
have already been analyzed (Zoffmann 2001, 2324), while

1
2

Grateful thanks are due to Nndor Kalicz and Pl Raczky who released publication rights for the Szolnok-Szanda burials.
Grave 6 was dated to the Migration Period.

179

The Krs Culture in Eastern Hungary

Fig. 1.

Szolnok-Szanda 1: Grave 1; 2: Grave 2; 3: Grave 3; 4: Grave 4; 5: Grave 5; 6: Grave 7; 7: Grave 8.

180

Tibor Paluch: Graves in the Krs Culture...

ented southnorth into the pit No. 5. No grave goods.

Grave 8 (Fig. 1. 7)
Complete skeleton of a 5157 years old woman placed
on its right side in a tightly contracted position oriented
southnorth into the pit No. 5. No grave goods.
In addition to these seven graves, two mandibulae of two
other individuals (45 years old child and ad.-mat. aged man)
came to light during the excavation of this site from pit 5.

skeletons were brought to light. This means that information

on burials is available only from the 5% of all Krs culture
settlements in Csongrd County,5 and the number rises to
only 20% when excavated sites are used as a basis of comparison. Therefore one may justifiably ask where the rest of
the population was buried that created and inhabited these
settlements. It may very well be the case that the answer will
never be known. However, one cannot even try answering
this question without the in-depth knowledge of mortuary
behaviour. Therefore, prior to further discussing the problem it is of utmost importance that we reviewed, analyzed
and understood all phenomena related to burials as much as
possible.
The overwhelming majority of graves came to light
during the excavation of refuse pits. Relationships between
burials, the domestic sphere and refuse pits in the Krs culture have been emphasized since the beginnings of such research (Banner 1932, 45; 1937, 4143; Kutzin 1944, 93
97; Trogmayer 1968, 115134; 1969, 13). For a long time,
burials into simple pits were accepted as routine practice although alternative opinions were voiced as well (Csalog
1968, 22). During the excavation of ordinary refuse pits the
outline of a grave pit within may be easily overlooked.
Therefore until recently only five such observations have
been made at the sites of Dvavnya-Barci kishalom (Oravecz 1997, 18), Dvavnya-Katonafldek (Ecsedy 1972,
61) and Tiszapspki-Karancs(part)-Hromg-dl (Csnyi, Cseh & Trnoki 2002). On the basis of the small number of such special grave pits it cannot be verified that the
practice was general within the distribution area of the Krs culture in Hungary. On the other hand, the discovery of
these few cases shows special attention paid during the disposal of the deceased which may also be hypothesized in
other cases even in the absence of visible evidence. It is
therefore reasonable to assume that the unusually small
number of designated grave pits is related to superficial observation and coarse methods of recovery.6
The majority of skeletons in settlement features were
discovered in a contracted position. Body positions may differ is some cases, but exceptions are rare: Deszk-I. sz.
Olajkt (Trogmayer 1968, 120; 1969, 6), Hdmezvsrhely-Kotacpart-Vata-tanya (Banner 1932, 20), MaroslelePana (Trogmayer 1964, 67). On the other hand, the actual
gesture of burial may only be hypothesized in a number of
cases on the basis of the mere presence of human bones, for
example at the settlements of Endrd 119 (Makkay 1992,
133), Hdmezvsrhely-Kopncs Zsoldos-tanya (Banner
1932, 7; Trogmayer 1968, 116, 118, 120) and SzarvasSzappanos (MRT 8, 385).

CHARACTERISTICS OF EARLY
NEOLITHIC BURIALS
One of the general features of early neolithic burial
practices is that clearly defined cemeteries are unknown and
graves seem to be occurring at random within settlements
showing little sign of systematic rites and symbolic care
giving (Raczky 1988, 21). A remarkable trait of Krs culture settlements, however, is the relatively small number of
even such burials. Previously this scarcity could have been
attributed to sampling bias resulting from the lack of large
surface excavations. However, several Krs culture settlements excavated completely or almost completely during
the last decade (Csnyi, Cseh & Trnoki 2002; Dani et al.
2006; Tth 2010) have shown unambiguously that there is
no direct relationship between the size of early neolithic settlements and the numbers of graves found within.
Judged on the basis of settlements,3 the graves recovered represent only a tiny fraction of estimated early neolithic populations. Literary research has shown that to date
184 burials are known from 40 Krs culture settlements
from Hungary. This also means that half of the 365 graves
found at a total of 87 settlements of the KrsStarevo
Cri cultural entity were found in the present-day territory
of Hungary. The exact reason for this small proportion remains unknown (Paluch 2004, 24), although early neolithic
burials may also be somewhat underrepresented in the archaeological literature.4 This possibility is not only relevant
to the KrsStarevo culture. A similar suspicion was
voiced in connection with the Early Neolithic of Bulgaria as
well (Bvarov 2000, 137).
It is remarkable how the number of settlements having
burials within is dwarfed by the large number of Krs culture sites known thus far. Although exact numbers would be
difficult to state with regard to the area of the entire country,
some comparative data are of interest. As it stands today,
232 early neolithic sites are known in Csongrd County today. Fifty-one of these were excavated which looks like a
fairly high proportion, especially considering the small
number of actual post-excavation analyses: almost one
quarter of all known sites have been excavated. At these locations graves were recovered in 11 cases and a total of 46

4
5
6

Previously I estimated the number of all known KrsStarevoCri culture sites around 1000 (Paluch 2004, 24). As research stands now, even if only
Krs culture sites are counted within the current borders of Hungary their number may exceed 800 (for exact numbers see the catalogue in this
volume). This is a quantum leap compared to the 484 Krs (Makkay 1982, 113) and 18 Starevo (Kalicz, M. Virg & T. Bir 1998, 155) sites reported
previously.
In some publications no information whatsoever may be found regarding graves (a few selected examples include: Gimbutas 1976; Minichreiter 1999;
Lichter 2001).
The situation is even worse on a national level. Only 184 burials are known from the approximately 1000 early neolithic sites known in Hungary.
In addition to the observations made in Hungary, grave pits of this culture were identified at Sueava, Romania (Coma 1995, 248) and Zlatara-Ruma,
Serbia (Lekovi 1988, 108).

181

The Krs Culture in Eastern Hungary

POSITION

OTHER FEATURES

The position of the skeleton within the pit was not even
recorded in a significant number of the 184 Krs culture
inhumations mentioned in the literature (n=94, 51%). In the
rest of the reports descriptions of contracted bodies laid on
the left side dominate (n=52, 28%). A smaller portion of
contracted skeletons were found on their right sides (n=25,
14%). In six cases (3%) only the contracted position was
mentioned without specifying the side upon which the body
was laid to rest. The remaining seven sets of human remains
were encountered either in different positions or their condition could not be specified. In contrast to later periods of the
Neolithic, differentiation by gender was not possible on the
basis of the position of skeleton. The reason is that in the
few cases when the sex of the person could be identified by
anthropologists (Fig. 9) no significant difference could be
observed in the preference of either side. In a few cases
among contracted skeletons the body was found placed either on the back or face down stomach. These peculiar cases
include inhumations recovered at Deszk-I. sz. Olajkt
(Trogmayer 1968, 120; 1969, 6), Hdmezvsrhely-Kotacpart-Vata-tanya (Banner 1932, 20), Maroslele-Pana (Trogmayer 1964, 67). Among the Krs culture burials known
to date the extended skeleton of a woman placed on her
back discovered at the settlement of Dvavnya-Barci
kishalom should be considered an exception (Oravecz 1997,
18; Zoffmann 1997, 27).

In addition to phenomena represented by relatively

large numbers of occurrences and therefore considered general, less commonly observed features of burial rite were
also recorded illustrating the diversity of Krs culture mortuary behaviour.
The use of red ochre in burials was generally spread and
formed a well known feature of burial rites during the entire
Neolithic. The custom has even earlier antecedents. The
colour red, as a symbol of life must have belonged to the sacral sphere. One of the possible explanations may have been
that the deceased were smeared red to help preserving their
lively colour. This is indicated by traces of ochre discovered in burials. Publications often make only passing reference to ochre finds without specifying whether some body
part may have been painted or they were simply placed into
the burial as a grain or lump of paint forming part of the
grave furniture. The latter form of deposition is yet to be
documented in Krs culture burials. During this period
eight cases of ochre use were reported from three sites in
Hungary. These included Endrd-Varnyai-puszta (Trogmayer 1968, 118), Endrd 119, Grave 8 (Makkay 1992,
130), Szarvas-Szappanos (Krecsmarik 1915a, 13; 1915b,
19; Trogmayer 1968, 115; MRT 8. 385;). Of the eight observed cases six occurred at the site of Szarvas-Szappanos.
Cremation is another rare and therefore often debated
early neolithic funerary practice. Burnt human bones were
identified in burials at the sites of Endrd 119 (Makkay
1992, 133) and Szajol-Felsfld (Raczky 1988, 21), raising
the question whether they might be seen as evidence of cremation. The question is made even more interesting by the
results of the analysis of bone fragments recovered from the
anthropomorphic vessel from Hdmezvsrhely-Gorzsa.
These studies have shown that the remains originated from
the skull of a man aged approximately 60 years (Farkas
2005). Recently the possibility was raised that the so-called
Gorzsa Venus similarly to other anthropomorphic vessels dated to the Early Neolithic does not contain evidence
of a cremation burial but is rather a rare accessory of the
early Neolithic skull cult in Hungary (Trogmayer 2005, 11).
On the other hand, the placement of the deceased into special vessels is known in only four cases in the entire Early
Neolithic of Southeastern Europe (Bavarov 2007, 190).
So-called mass graves were observed in five cases
within the distribution area of the Krs culture in Hungary.
These were determined with regard to the fact that they contained several skeletons (originating from 411 individuals)
or at least fragmented remains indicative of the same numbers of peoples. Moreover, no signs of mortuary rituals
could be detected. Such graves were recovered at Berettyjfalu-Nagy Bcs-dl (Dani et al. 2006), Endrd-Kpolnahalom, Grave 1 (MRT 8, 129), Szarvas-Szappanos,
Grave 10 (MRT 8, 385) and Tiszapspki-Karancs-Hromg-dl, Grave 2 (Csnyi, Cseh & Trnoki 2002; Zoffmann 2005). In addition to pits containing such relatively
large numbers of skeletons some features had only 23 individuals buried into them. This diversity seems to indicate
that during the Early Neolithic there were no standardized
burial practices attributable to particular cultures.

ORIENTATION
Two basic forms may be observed in the orientation of
inhumations so far recorded. Ninety-one, i. e. fewer than
half of the 184 individuals had their orientations documented. Among the known cases placing the dead with the
head toward the north may be considered dominant (n = 31,
17%). Two other relatively well represented directions include eastwest (n = 23, 12.5%) and southnorth (n = 25,
13.5%) respectively. Around 1/8 of the burials fall within
either of these two categories. In an additional 12 cases the
head of the deceased was pointing to the west. When reviewing all orientations it becomes clear that they are concentrated around two dominant axes representing the northsouth and east-west directions. Although smaller or greater
deviations from this trend occur they are insignificant in
number. For the time being no ritual interpretation can be
provided for this diversity (Kalicz & Kos 2000, 51). It is
worth emphasizing, however, that neither of the two main
directions can be considered dominant, no marked differences can be seen between the three groups of graves clustered around these directions. This may be explained by the
small number of known cases. In spite of all possible doubts
regarding intentional patterning in the direction of inhumations, the previously described tendencies may be considered general. This distribution seems to be supported by
similar groups of dominant orientations in the case of the
Starevo and Cri cultures (Lichter 2003, 148) related to the
Early Neolithic in Hungary, and the study of early neolithic
burials in Greece yielded similar results (Perls 2001, 277).

182

Tibor Paluch: Graves in the Krs Culture...

Fig. 2.

Szentes, Boros Smuel utca, Feature 36.

GRAVE GOODS

Of these grave goods, the vessel found at SzarvasEgyhzfld contained two stone axes (MRT 8, 395; Plate
9/34). In addition to the former social position of the person, this special find may also be indicative of the task or
profession performed during her life. Two of the remaining burials, excavated at Hdmezvsrhely-Kopncs
Zsoldos-tanya (Banner 1932, 4; Trogmayer 1968, 116) and
Szolnok-Szanda (Kalicz & Raczky 1978a, 26; 1978b, 274)
respectively, contained bracelets. According to the excavator, burials found inside houses at the settlements of SzajolFelsfld and Szolnok-Szanda represent special cases in
which objects (tools, jewellery, cult objects) abandoned inside the house were intended to serve as part of the grave
furniture (Raczky 1988, 21; in this volume).
Given the small number of burials with identifiable
grave goods and the numerous bodies found in tentative refuse pits the possibility has also been raised that such skeletons may not belong to the real burials of the Krs
Starevo culture but originate from members of enemy
groups killed in conflict and the real graves of these cultures
should be sought outside the settlements area (Csalog
1965, 1925; Raczky 1988, 22). Recently, similar doubts
have been voiced in relation to atypical burials found in the
Balkans: those found within may not represent ordinary

Aside from Hungary, early neolithic burials across

Southeastern Europe are characterized by the fact that in
comparison with later periods very few objects found in the
graves may be considered veritable grave goods. The majority of burials tend to be encountered during the excavation of what look like refuse pits that usually contain quantities of find material from the culture investigated. Therefore
in most cases it is impossible to tell whether certain objects
were simply deposited into the pit or were interred with the
person in the form of grave goods. Within the distribution
area of the Krs culture in Hungary only 13 of the 184
burials were accompanied by objects or fragments of objects that could be identified as part of the grave furniture.
The majority of known burials accompanied by grave
goods contained a single vessel as a symbol of care for the
deceased. These seven graves include finds from the sites of
Deszk-I. sz. olajkt (Trogmayer 1968, 118; Plate 8), Endrd-Lyukashalom (MRT 8, 156), Endrd-Varnyai-puszta
(Trogmayer 1968, 120), Hdmezvsrhely-KopncsKovcs-tanya (Banner 1932, 1112; Trogmayer 1968, 117),
SzakmrKisls (Bognr-Kutzin 1977, 1617; Bnnfy in
this volume), Szarvas-Egyhzfld (MRT 8, 395) and Szentes-Boross Smuel utca (Fig. 2).

183

The Krs Culture in Eastern Hungary

members of the community (Perls 2001, 274). Meanwhile

individuals who were accorded proper burials and sometimes were even given grave goods indicate the possibility
that some concept of taking care of the dead during afterlife
may have existed. The interpretation that some of the more
neglected-looking bodies originated from enemies, on the
other hand, is not directly supported by any evidence of
perimortem skeletal trauma (Zoffmann 2005, 145).
Due to the small number of burials with grave goods,
early neolithic society cannot be better understood on the
basis of this meagre set of artefacts. The situation is exacerbated by the fact that not only the number of known grave
goods is small, but altogether few inhumations were found
considering the estimated sizes of populations in various
phases of the Krs culture (Raczky 1988, 21). One may
also note the conspicuously small number of newborn and
infants among the skeletal finds. The paucity of young individuals, however, may be explained by taphonomic loss.
Poorly mineralized young bone is more perishable and may
have been especially impacted by the organic substrate of
refuse pits. Effects of poor preservation may have been exacerbated by insufficient recovery: small, eroded bone fragments from infants may have been overlooked at some of
the earlier excavations (Zoffmann 2005, 145). In spite of the
difficulties, attempts have been made to distinguish between
two, vertically defined segments in early neolithic society.
Developing this hypothesis was inspired by the observation
that it is mostly women and children whose burials dominate within settlements (Bailey 2000, 122124; Perls 2001,
279), while mens graves are encountered relatively infrequently. This could be explained by the aforementioned possibility that members of the community of lesser significance
were interred within the settlement area, while important
real members of the ancient society are hardly detectable
archaeologically among such burials (Chapman 1983, 10).
When the development of Early Neolithic in Southeastern Europe is considered it is clear that burials closely associated with settlements were widely spread during this period. It seems that settlements, symbolizing food producing
economy as well as a sedentary way of life became important elements even in mortuary behaviour (Raczky 1988,
26). Burying the deceased in abandoned sections of the settlement may have been related to the evolution of their
dualistic perception. The emotional need of caretaking may
eventually have been in conflict with the fear of death; however, the first seems to have been more important at the
time. It was only during later Neolithic times that belief systems developed to a state in which distinguishing between
settlement and cemetery became a psychological necessity
(Raczky 1982, 13; Chapman 1983, 10, 1416).
Attempts have also been made to explain the great diversity of burial rites on the basis of ethnic differences
(Jovanovi 1975, 518). However, it is probably more realistic to consider spontaneous variability in funeral ceremony as an expression of the diverse ways in which afterlife
was imagined. Special mortuary behaviour may be seen as
the systematic extension of caregiving in a human group to
its dead (Raczky 1982a, 13). Cemeteries established in later
periods express coherence in larger communities through
funerary customs. At the same time, patterns in mortuary

behaviour are also more easily noticed in larger series of

burials than in sporadically occurring graves of the Early
Neolithic.

REFERENCES
Bvarov K. 2000. The Karanovo Neolithic mortuary practices in
their Balkan and Anatolian context. In Hiller S. & Nikolov V.
(Hrsg.), Karanovo III. Beitrge zum Neolithikum in Sdosteuropa. Wien, 245252.
Bvarov K. 2007. Jar Burials as Early Settlement Markers in
Southeast European Neolithic. In Spataro M. & Biagi P. (eds),
A short walk through Balkans: first farmers of the Carpathian
Basin and adjacent regions. (= Societ per la Preistoria e
Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Quaderno
12). Trieste, 189205.
Bailey D. W. 2000: Balkan Prehistory: Exclusion, incorporation
and identity. LondonNew York.
Banner J. 1932. A kopncsi s kotacparti neolithikus telepek s a
tiszai-kultra III. periodusa Die neolithische Ansiedlung von
Hdmezvsrhely-Kopncs und Kotacpart und die III.
Periode der Theiss-Kultur. Dolgozatok a Szegedi Tudomnyegyetem Rgisgtudomnyi Intzetbl 8, 148.
Banner J. 1936. Rgszeti kutatsok Szegeden. Dolgozatok a
Szegedi Tudomnyegyetem Rgisgtudomnyi Intzetbl 12,
267285.
Banner J. 1937. Die Ethnologie der Krs-Kultur. Dolgozatok a
Szegedi Tudomnyegyetem Rgisgtudomnyi Intzetbl 13,
3249.
Bognr-Kutzin I. 1977: Ausgrabungen in Szakmr-Kisls im
Jahre 1975. Mitteilungen des Archologischen Instituts der
Ungarischen Akademie der Wisenschaften 7, 1317.
Chapman J. 1983. Meaning and illusion in the study of burial in
Balkan Prehistory. In Poulter A. G. (ed.), Ancient Bulgaria.
Nottingham, 141.
Coma E. 1995. Morminte ale Purtatorilor Culturii Starevo-Cri
Descoperite n Moldova Tombes appartenant la Culture de
Starevo-Cri sur le Territoire de la Moldavie. Acta Musei
Napocensis 32, 245256.
Csalog J. 1965. Zur Frage der Krs-Gruppe in Ungarn. Acta
Antiqua et Archaeologica 8, 1925.
Csnyi M., Cseh J. & Trnoki J. 2002. Tiszapspki, Karancs,
Hromg-dl: kora bronzkori ldozati gdr s kora vaskori
plet Tiszapspki, Karancs, Hromg-dl: A sacrifial pit
from the Early Bronze Age and a building from the Early Iron
Age. Rgszeti kutatsok Magyarorszgon 1999 Archaeological Investigations in Hungary 1999. Budapest, 4762.
Dani J., Szilgyi K. A., Szelekovszky M., Czifra Sz. & Kisjuhsz
V. 2006. Preliminary report of the excavations preceding investment at the Berettyjfalu, Nagy Bcs-dl site in 2004
2005. Rgszeti kutatsok Magyarorszgon 2005 Archaeological Investigations in Hungary 2005. Budapest, 531.
Ecsedy I. 1972. Neolithische Siedlung in Dvavnya, Katonafldek. Mitteilungen des Archologischen Instituts der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 3, 5963.
Farkas L. Gy. 2005. Szakvlemny a Hdmezvsrhely-Gorzsa
Kovcs tanya lelhelyen Gazdapusztai Gyula rgsz ltal
1955-ben feltrt hamvasztott csontokrl. Zalai Mzeum 14,
13.
Gimbutas M. 1976. (ed.), Neolithic Macedonia. As reflected by excavation at Anza, Southeast Yougoslavia. (= Monumenta
Archaeologica 1). Los Angeles.
Jovanovi B. 1975. The Origin of the Early Neolithic in Djerdap.
Godinjak Centra za Balkanoloka Ispitivanja Akademije
Nauka i Umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine 14, 518.

184

Tibor Paluch: Graves in the Krs Culture...

Kalicz N. & Kos J. 2000. Telepls a legkorbbi jkkori srokkal szakkelet-Magyarorszgrl Eine Siedlung mit ltneolithischen Grbern in Nordostungarn. Herman Ott Mzeum
vknyve 39, 4576.
Kalicz N. & Raczky P. 1978a. Szolnok-Szanda-Tenysziget-Dersi
gt. Archaeologiai rtest 105, 274.
Kalicz N. & Raczky P. 1978b. Szolnok-Szanda-Tenysziget-Dersi
gt. Rgszeti Fzetek Ser. II, 31, 2526.
Kalicz N. & Raczky P. 1981. The precursors to the Horns of Consecration in the South-East European Neolithic. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 33, 520.
Kalicz N. & Raczky P. 1982. Siedlung der Krs-Kultur in Szolnok-Szanda. Mitteilungen des Archologischen Institutes der
Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 1011 (1980
1981), 1324.
Kalicz N., M. Virg Zs. & T. Bir K. 2002. Vrs, Mriaszonysziget. Rgszeti kutatsok Magyarorszgon 1999 Archaeological Investigations in Hungary 1999. Budapest, 1526.
Krecsmarik E. 1915a. skori nyomok Szarvas terletn s a szappanosi neolit-kor telep. Szarvas.
Krecsmrik E. 1915b. A bksszarvasi stelepek. Archaeologiai
rtest 35, 1143.
Kutzin I. 1944. A Krs-kultra. (= Dissertationes Pannonicae II.
23). Budapest.
Lekovi V. 1988. Zlatara. In Srejovi D. (ed.), The Neolithic in
Serbia. Archaeological Research 19481988. Beograd, 108.
Lekovi V. 1997. Neolithic settlements. In Vaja Z. (ed.), Arheological investigations along the highway route Srem. Beograd,
2544.
Lichter C. 2001. Untersuchungen zu den Bestattungssitten des sdosteuropischen Neolithikums und Chalkolithikums. Mainz am
Rhein.
Lichter C. 2003. Continuity and Change in Burial Customs: Examples from the Carpathian Basin. In Nikolova L. (ed.), Early
Symbolic Systems for Communication in Southeast Europe. (=
British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1139).
Oxford, 135152.
Makkay J. 1982. A magyarorszgi neolitikum kutatsnak j
eredmnyei. Az idrend s a npi azonosts krdsei. Budapest.
Makkay J. 1992. Excavations at the Krs culture settlement of
Endrd-regszlk 119 in 19861989. In Bknyi S. (ed.),
Cultural and landscape changes in south-east Hungary I. reports on the Gyomaendrd Project (= Archaeolingua Main Series 1). Budapest, 121193.
Minichreiter K. 1999. Ranoneolitiki ukopi i pogrebni obiaji u
naseljima starevakog kulturnog kompleksa Early Neolithic burials and funerary customs in settlements of the
Starevo culture complex. Prilozi 1516 (19981999), 520.
MRT 8. Jankovich B. D., Makkay J. & Szke B. M. 1989. (eds),
Bks megye Rgszeti Topogrfija. Szarvasi Jrs IV/2 (=
Magyarorszg Rgszeti Topogrfija 8). Budapest.
Oravecz H. 1997. DvavnyaBarci kishalom. A Krs kultra
fiatalabb (Protovina) szakasznak telepe s temetkezse
Late Krs (Protovina) settlement and burial at DvavnyaBarci kishalom. Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae 525.
Paluch T. 2004. A KrsStarevo kultra temetkezsei Die Bestattungen der KrsStarevo-Kultur. Jsa Andrs Mzeum
vknyve 46, 2351.
Paluch T. 2007. The Krs culture graves. In Makkay J.: The excavations of the Early Neolithic sites of the Krs culture in the
Krs valley, Hungary: the final report. Volume I. The excavations: stratigraphy, structures and graves (= Societ per la
Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia,

Quaderno 11) Trieste, 247257.

Perls C. 2001. The Early Neolithic in Greece. Cambridge.
Raczky P. 1982a. A hzba val temetkezs szoksnak kezdetei
Dlkelet-Eurpban. Elmunklatok a Magyarsg Nprajzhoz 10, 1726.
Raczky P. 1982b. jkkor Neolithic Period. In Raczky P. (ed.),
Szolnok megye a npek orszgtjn Szolnok County. Crossland of many races. Szolnok, 823, 9299.
Raczky P. 19821983. Origins of the Custom of Burying the Dead
inside Houses in Sout-East Europe. Szolnok Megyei Mzeumok vknyve 510.
Raczky P. 1988. A Tisza-vidk kulturlis s kronolgiai kapcsolatai a Balknnal s az geikummal a neolitikum, rzkor
idszakban. Szolnok.
Tth K. 2010. Hdmezvsrhely-Gorzsa V. szm homokbnya.
Rgszeti kutatsok Magyarorszgon 2009 Archaeological
Investigations in Hungary 2009. Budapest, 220222.
Trogmayer O. 1964. Megjegyzsek a Krs csoport relatv
idrendjhez Remarks to the Relative Chronology of the
Krs Group. Archaeologiai rtest 91, 6786.
Trogmayer O. 1968. A Dl-Alfld korai neolitikumnak fbb
krdsei. PhD Dissertation. Szeged. Manuscript.
Trogmayer O. 1969. Die Bestattungen der Krs-Gruppe. Mra
Ferenc Mzeum vknyve 1969:2, 515.
Trogmayer O. 2005. A kora neolitikum edny-idoljairl. Zalai
Mzeum 14, 1112.
Whittle A. 2007. (ed.), The Early Neolithic on the Great Hungarian Plain. Investigations of the Krs culture site of Ecsegfalva 23, County Bks. (= Varia Archaeologica Hungarica
21). Budapest.
K. Zoffmann Zs. 1997. A Krs kultra ksei szakasznak embertani lelete Dvavnya-Barci kishalom lelhelyrl Anthropological material from Dvavnya-Barci kishalom from the
Early Neolithic Late Krs culture. Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae 2630.
K. Zoffmann Zs. 2001. Neolitikus s rzkori embertani leletek az
Alfldrl Neolitische und kupferzeitliche anthropologische
Funde in der Tiefebene. Mra Ferenc Mzeum vknyve
Studia Archaeologica 7, 2342.
K. Zoffmann Zs. 2005. Embertani adatok a dl-alfldi neolitikum
biolgiai s trtnelmi rekonstrukcijhoz Anthropological
data to the biological and historical reconstruction of the Neolithic of the southern part of the Great Hungarian Plain. In
Bende L. & Lrinczy G. (eds), Htkznapok Vnuszai.
Hdmezvsrhely, 145155.

185