the lengyel culture settlement in bu;any (preliminary

299

UDK 903.23'15.02(437.6)''634''Documenta Praehistorica XXXIV (2007)

The Lengyel culture settlement in Bu;any(preliminary report on pottery processing)

Noémi Pa/inováDepartment of Archaeology, Faculty of Philosophy, Constantine University Nitra, Slovakia

[email protected]

Introduction

The Lengyel Culture settlement in Bu≠any, countyTrnava was discovered during research project workfrom 1978 to 1981 led by P. Romsauer and J. Bujna.The site of Bu≠any (location Kopanice) is situated onthe high right-bank loess terrace of the River Dud-váh. An area 530 m long and 60–200 m wide, about6 ha, was explored during four research seasons. 193settlement structures and 55 graves were uncoveredin this area (Bujna and Romsauer 1982; Bujna andRomsauuer 1986.27). The following cultures wererepresented at the site: Lengyel Culture (Neolithic),Group Baj≠-Retz (Cooper Age), Madarov Culture(Bronze Age), Kalenderberg Culture (Hallstatt), LaTène Culture group, and sporadic pottery finds fromthe late Middle Ages.

Lengyel settlement, supported with 33 exploitationand refuse pits, was located approximately in thenorth half of the explored area of some 200 x 250 m.

The excavation of the entire ground plan of a circu-lar feature, probably of a cult character, on the east-ern edge of this area is one of the most importantachievements. In spite of the fact that a consider-able area was examined, the entire settlement wasnot uncovered and there was no success in uncove-ring its residential section (Bujna and Romsauer1981.59–60).

The circular enclosure consisted of two concentricditches, and an interior palisade comprising trenchsections and post-holes (Fig. 1). The interior diame-ter reached 45.5 m and the exterior diameter rea-ched 67–70 m. Two collateral acuminate ditches2.6 m–3 m wide and 2.6 m deep were interruptedby gates on four opposite sides. A 10 m long outerditch runs into two rectangular (pliers-like) armsfrom the point where the gate was located. Hencethe maximum extent of the circular enclosure in the

ABSTRACT – The paper presents the preliminary results of the numerous ceramic finds from theLengyel Culture settlement, excavated between 1979 and 1981, with a circular object, probably of cultnature, in Bu≠any, county Trnava, Slovakia. The analysis focuses on a statistical method of numeri-cal coding that simplifies working with huge data files and helps by exact description and classifica-tion of the finds. The starting pointing of this approach is recognition of connections and relations(in typological and decorated respects) of the ceramic material. The most suitable comparisons couldbe found in material from Neolithic sites of south-west Slovakia, Moravia and Austria.

IZVLE∞EK – Tema predstavlja preliminarne rezultate ∏tevilnega kerami≠nega materiala iz naseljalengyelske kulture, ki je bilo izkopano med leti 1979 in 1981 v kraju Bu≠any, okro∫je Trnava na Slo-va∏kem. Predstavljamo tudi okrogel objekt, verjetno kultne narave. Analiza se osredoto≠a na statis-ti≠no metodo numeri≠ne kode, ki olaj∏uje delo z velikimi podatkovnimi datotekami in pomaga prinatan≠nem opisu in klasifikaciji najdb. Izhodi∏≠e pristopa je prepoznavanje tipolo∏kih in ornamen-talnih povezav in razmerij. Primerjave najdemo pri materialu iz neolitskih najdi∏≠ jugozahodne Slo-va∏ke, Moravske in Avstrije.

KEY WORDS – Neolithic settlement; Lengyel Culture stage I; pottery; relative chronology

Noémi Pa/inová

300

direction of the entrances reached 87 m. The innerditch was also interrupted at gates locations. In thisway the area created was narrowed by two trencheswith the pair of stockade pits at their ends, whichwere probably the remains of the construction of anentrance gate to the inner fenced area. There was aground plan of a two-room stockade building, 15 mx 7.5 m with, and three big pits in a triangular confi-guration in the north-eastern quadrant of object. Thebuilding was the same age as the circular structurebelonging to the group of Lengyel structures (Bujnaand Romsauer 1980.56).

At a distance of 100–120 m south-westward and even200 m northward from the circular structure, skele-ton graves were diagnosed, two of which are proba-bly the same age as the Lengyel settlement, and twograves with no finds can be assigned to them on thebasis of their orientation, as well as the positioningof the dead (Bujna and Romsauer 1981.60).

Bu≠any-Kopanice is categorized as a Lengyel Culturesite of primary importance largely thanks to the dis-covery of circular enclosure which fits with evidenceof buildings typical of a defined phase (early stages)of the Lengyel period of the cultural complex (inclu-ding Moravian Painted Ware Culture – MMK and Au-stro-Moravian Painted Ware Group – MOG) and con-temporary Stroked Pottery Culture in the broader re-gional sense. The circular enclosure in Bu≠any wasbuilt very functionally and gracefully, without anynoticeable repairs which indicates that it probablyfollowed some older pattern (Karlovský 1999.119).The very first circular buildings, the evidence of theoldest monumental architecture in central Europe,appeared as early as the period of Protolengyel in anarea of Hungary west of the Danube (Kalicz 1983–1984; Károlyi 1983–1984).

The fortifications in Bu≠any-Kopanice consisted of acircular structure with two ditches, an inner palisadeand four entrances of type 1–2, according to the clas-sification of V. Podborský (1988.243–245). AfterTrnka’s (1991.312–315) classification, the circularbuilding belongs to the group of classical double-cir-cle formations with the 3:2 ratio of outer and innerditch, with four entrances and outward running armsin the outer ditch. In Slovakia, for example, the cir-cular enclosures in Horné Otrokovce-Berinová, Tr-nava county (Kuzma 1998.95, Fig.7; Tirpák 1997.155–156), and Podhorany-Mechenice in Nitra county(Kuzma 2005.Fig. 6. B, C) are assigned to the sametype. The ground plan of ditches in Bylany, CzechRepublic (Zápotocká 1983.Fig. 6), west of the Leng-

yel cultural circle, is practically identical with Bu-≠any.

Bu≠any is an exception from the point of view ofthe traditional building process of circular enclosu-res. The outer ditch, usually markedly narrower thanthe inner ditch (e.g. Svodín – Nemejcová-Pavúková1995.63), is 40 cm broader in the case of Bu≠any.Hence in Bu≠any it is not very reasonable to think ofthe outer ditch as of some complementary elementin a certain sense, for example, to gain a bigger quan-tity of soil to build a bank, or for some other reasons(Nemejcová-Pavúková 1997.105). Moreover, Ger-hard Trnka (1991.308–316) clearly claims that thesecircular buildings appeared in one stroke, i.e. thebuilding and its exact appearance was designed inadvance. In Bu≠any we do not even register the dif-ference in the width between the outrunning rectan-gular arms of the outer ditch and the width at thegates of the inner ditch (as in the case of two NNWand WSW entrances, the difference is slightly discer-nible, but there is no difference in the other two).

While appraising the two-room stockade building,i.e. the house with one open part without a trans-verse wall in the inner area of circular architecturein Bu≠any, we must emphasize that its constructioncorresponds to buildings uncovered in a fenced areaof a palisade circular enclosure in the settlement ofLengyel Culture (Lengyel II stage) in Ωlkovce (Pavúk1991.350–354, Fig. 4; 1998) on the same terrace asthe settlement in Bu≠any, and only some 2.5 km dis-tant. There are also two houses of ’megaron’ type at

Fig. 1. Bu≠any–Kopanice circular enclosure groundplan (after Bujna and Romsauer 1986.Fig.2).

The Lengyel culture settlement in Bu;any (preliminary report on pottery processing)

301

Tab. 1. Database structure of the Lengyel Culture pottery finds from Bu≠any.

Database section Rated category Data typeA. General Registration number of pot Numeric

Inventory number NumericSerial number of box NumericYear of field research NumericFeature number NumericType of feature Numerical codeLayer of feature (cm) NumericFragmentary remains (quantity) Numeric

B. Typological Pottery class (type) Numerical codePottery class (variant) Numerical codeDegree of pot conservation Numerical codeForm of the vessel rim Numerical codeForm of the neck Numerical codeForm of vessel collar Numerical codeForm of the lower half of vessel Numerical codeProfile of the bottom Numerical codeForm of the pedestal Numerical codeProfilation of vessel Numerical code

C. Metric Diameter of the rim (cm) NumericDiameter of the convexity (cm) NumericDiameter of the bottom (cm) NumericDiameter of the pedestal (base) (cm) NumericThickness of the pot-wall (mm) NumericThickness of the pot-wall Numerical code

D. Technological and decorative Pot-surface preparation, exterior Numerical codePot-surface preparation, interior Numerical codeDensity of ceramic material Numerical codeGrade of grain classification Numerical codeGrain roundness Numerical codeMaterial roughness Numerical codeAddition to the ceramic material Numerical codeSurface color, exterior Numerical codeSurface color, interior Numerical codeType of interior decoration Numerical codeType of exterior decoration Numerical codeIncised decoration technique Numerical codePlacing of the exterior incised decoration Numerical codeType of the exterior incised decoration Numerical codePlacing of the interior incised decoration Numerical codeType of the interior incised decoration Numerical codePlacing of the plastic decoration Numerical codePlacing of the engraved decoration Numerical codeType of plastic decoration\application Numerical codeType of engraved decoration Numerical codeMultiplication of plastic decoration elements Numerical codePlastic decoration or serviceable forms Numerical codePlacing of the exterior painted decoration Numerical codeExterior color combination Numerical codeExterior paint motif and its variants Numerical codePlacing of the interior painted decoration Numerical codeInterior color combination Numerical codeInterior paint motif and its variants Numerical code

Noémi Pa/inová

302

the settlement in Santovka, synchronous with theMoravian Painted Ware Culture Ib–c phase in southMoravia (Pavúk 1994). The ground plans of suchhouses occurred then in the south-west of Slovakiaduring at least three pottery phases (Bu≠any, San-tovka, Ωlkovce).

Database structure of pottery finds

The centre of material found in the Lengyel settle-ment of Bu≠any is comprised of pottery, which isoverall processed in database system. The basic struc-ture of the pottery database (Tab. 1) partially arisesfrom a detailed system made for the Moravian Pain-ted Ware Culture (Podborský et al. 1977).

Lengyel settlement pits and pottery finds from Bu-≠any form a rich source of information. Their analy-sis and evaluation is the condition for understand-

ing the chronological and dimensional structure notonly of the settlement itself, but also of the posi-tion of Lengyel village within the partial regionalunits. We decided to present the results of a potteryset analysis from the building complex with the cir-cular architecture ground plan (Fig. 2) and fromsome selected settlement pits from Bu≠any (Fig. 3).These so-called common settlement pits generallycontain the largest number of structures in Neolithicsettlements. The pits are of approximately oval or ir-regular ground plan, with variously shaped walls,and flat, concave, or waved bottoms. Probably big-ger sets of pits uncovered in Bu≠any can be interpre-ted as building clay pits which became dumps afterfulfilling their function (e.g. structures 4 and 180).Also, smaller pits which were originated in relationto the need for clay for building purposes served forthe purchase of clay. We have chosen to analyze thefollowing structures: 1, 29, 82, 117, 153, and 155.

Ceramic classesCircular enclosure Pots and Large- Bowls and Beakers Special Small Unidentified Totalcomponents pot-like pitcher bowls on types forms(object 60) types pedestalOuter ditch 9 2 1 3 1 0 13 29Inner ditch 15 4 7 3 0 0 28 57Outer entrance 13 6 7 1 0 1 20 48Inner gate 5 2 1 0 0 0 7 15Posthole-house 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1Palisade 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2Surface collection 3 0 1 3 0 0 2 9Total 45 14 17 10 1 1 73 161

Fig. 2. Pot-quantity share of the basic pottery classes in the circular enclosure components.

01 1978 450 200 80 10 6 0 11 13 0 0 0 15 5504 1978 520 440 140 12 2 0 13 10 2 0 0 2 4129 1978 450 340 80 10 4 0 5 10 0 0 1 12 4282 1979 π 70 370 n. 13 0 0 29 13 1 0 0 28 84117 1980 π Ø 200–220 65 5 1 0 3 3 1 1 0 12 25153 1980 600 375 60 10 2 1 9 12 0 0 0 57 91155 1980 380 350 100 11 1 0 14 9 2 0 0 17 54180 1981 700 530 190 6 5 0 13 3 0 0 0 36 63

Total 77 21 1 97 73 6 1 1 179 456

Fig. 3. Representative Lengyel Culture structures: basic data and pot-quantity share in the pottery ensem-ble (n. – not detected).

Obj

ect N

o.

Year

of f

ield

rese

arch

Leng

th\c

m

Wid

th\c

m

Max

. dep

th\c

m

Pots

and

pot-l

ike

type

s

Larg

e-pi

tche

r

Mus

hroo

m

Bow

ls a

ndbo

wls

on

pede

stal

Beak

ers

Serv

icea

ble

form

s

Spec

ial t

ypes

Smal

l cer

amic

form

s

Uni

dent

ified

frag

men

ts

Tota

l


303

The selected pottery ensemble from Bu≠any-Kopa-nice includes 617 specimens. 365 (60 %) of themcan be categorized into six basic types of pottery clas-ses (Fig. 4), and each of them can be further cate-gorized into variants of pottery classes enabling ashape diagnosis of particular vessels.

Pottery vessels were made of dough with a high con-tent of sandy admixtures. Strong-wall pottery (morethan 0.5 cm thick) is hence mostly grain and whole-grain, usually containing bigger pebbles and micas.The colour of the pot surfaces varies depending onthe kind of burn: black, grey, here and there chang-ing to brown, orange and yellow. Of the final surfacedesign techniques, a natural surface fine-tuned bysmoothing is prevalent. The surface of thin-wall pot-tery (up to 0.5 cm thick vessel walls) was usuallytuned by polishing, and rarely painted with a specialclay layer.

It is possible to divide the complex into four potterygroups according to wall thickness (Fig. 5):

a. thin-wall pottery (thick wall max. till 0,25 cm),b. slightly halfrough-wall pottery (thick wall between

0,25 and 0,5 cm),c. halfrough-wall pottery (thick wall between 0,5 and

1 cm),d. rough-wall pottery (thick wall over 1 cm).

Forms of the vessels

Pots and pot-like types (Fig. 6). These two cate-gories are unified, due to obvious fragmentation,which prevents further determination.It is possible to include 158 samples inthis category. Large pitchers (35 pie-ces), for which horned ears are typical(Fig. 9.5.7) are markedly present here.Mushroom pots appear sporadically inthis set (Fig. 9.1). Pots, other pot-liketypes and large pitchers, generally be-long to the group of thick pottery, 20 %of which can be classified as slightly

half rough-walled pottery, 64 % as halfrough-walled pottery and 16 % as arough-walled pottery. The oval-shapedrim obviously dominates (71 %) in theexamined set. Extended horned earswith a hole mostly appear on the sur-face of large pitchers (37 %). An em-bossed design is also represented bysimple vertically extended bosses andalso by a variation with a horizontal

hole, then asymmetrically projecting, hemispherical,conical, projecting and sporadically tongue-like bos-ses. Incised decoration appears on the surface of onlyeight specimens as true meander motifs, true (conti-nuous multiple) spirals and zig-zag motifs. Paintingis discernible in the case of 37 exemplars. The motifof vertical, horizontal or oblique bands appears re-peatedly.

Bowls and bowls on hollow pedestals (Fig. 7).This pottery class is also very numerous, with 114specimens. In many cases it was not even possibleto decide reliably if it is a bowl or bowl on a hollowpedestal. 35 bowls on hollow pedestals appear inthe set examined. Bowls are usually classified asrough-walled pottery, while 21 % of the set exami-ned can be classified as slightly half rough-walledpottery, 72 % as half rough-walled pottery, and 7 %as rough-walled pottery. The set examined contai-ned five main variations of bowls, from which themost numerous were bowls with symmetrical col-lars (13 %), then with opened (14 %) and inward-leaning collars (9 %), and finally conic bowls (7 %).Examining the form of the vessel rim, the oval-sha-ped rim which appears in the case of 60 specimenspredominates. Narrow rims also appear relatively of-ten (11x). The decoration was preserved on the sur-face of 65 % of fragments, on which painting wasfound in the case of 59 specimens – it is usually amotif of vertical, horizontal or oblique bands, 7x cir-cle motif, and once a diagonal net motif. Engraveddecoration does not occur. Plastic decoration is re-presented mainly by bosses. Hemispherical (11x),conical (8x) and projecting (5x) bosses are the most

Fig. 4. Pot-quantity share of the basic pottery types in the potteryensemble.

Fig. 5. Percentage shares of various pottery wall thickness groups.

Noémi Pa/inová

304

commonly occurring. Inciseddecoration was diagnosed inthe case of three exemplars.In the first case there is a zig-zag motif grouped in verticalstripes made with simple thinline; in the second case theexterior surface of bowl is de-corated with a single fine in-cised line which created aconvex-concave star shapemotif aided by an incised netmotif. The third bowl with in-cised decoration techniquehad true spiral motifs madewith a group of fine lines onits exterior surface and conti-nuous meanders with hookson its internal surface.

Beakers (Fig. 8). They be-long to the category of thin-walled pottery (70 %), possi-bly to a slightly half rough-walled pottery (30 %). In theset of shapes identified theycomprise one quarter. In thecase of bigger fragments (34%). We were successful in de-termining their variation. Bea-kers with biconical bodies pre-dominate here (29 %), follo-wed by beakers with a globu-lar body (21 %), then by bea-kers with upper convexity andtall thin beakers with bentnecks and biconical bodies,both types representing 14 % in the set. The most ofthe cups have an oval-shaped vessel rim (60 %), thennarrowed (20 %), pointed (11 %), sharply accentua-ted (6 %), and, finally, one fragment has a bevelledrim. Decoration occurs on the surface of 77 cups. In-cised decoration occurs on the exterior surface of 43specimens. A double-thin line decoration techniquedominates here (26x), but there is also a group offine thin incised lines (11x) and simple thin lines(6x) in the ensemble. From the motifs of incised or-naments, mainly true spiral (63 %), meander (15 %),stripe (10 %) and zig-zag motifs (10 %) are appliedin the case of cups. Plastic decoration in the form ofbosses occurs on the surface of at least half the cups.Projecting out bosses predominate here (25 %), fol-lowed by hemispherical bosses (17 %), asymmetri-cally projecting bosses (16 %) and vertically projec-

ting bosses (11 %). Painted decoration is frequentlypresent on cups, as it occurs on the surface of 61specimens, one of them being painted on the inte-rior side of the neck only, and 21 fragments werepainted on both sides. Within the colourful combina-tions on the surface of the cup ensemble purely redpaint dominates (80 %). However, there occurredalso a combination of red and yellow (15 %), as wellas red and white (5 %). Horizontal monochromebands, eventually a combination of horizontal andvertical bands on the interior neck surface, are themost common motifs of painted decoration appliedon the surface. There were two examples of perpen-dicular plain red bands on the interior neck surfaceof cups lined with white bands. A circle motif (8x)applied also round the boss was a typical decorationof the exterior. The motif of a horizontal letter ‘S’ of

Fig. 6. Bu≠any-Kopanice. Pots and pot-like types: 1, 3 – structure 29; 2, 4,7–9 – structure 60; 5, 6 – structure 153.


305

multiple white was recognized on the surface of onebeaker with a bent opened neck and lower conve-xity (Fig. 8.1). A plain red spiral motif was identifiedon the surface of two beakers.

Serviceable forms. Casks, lids and ladles belong tothis category. In the set examined these forms arenot widely represented. Only two casks with a widemouth, two flat lids, one with an ear, and one ladlewith socket applied at an angle (Fig. 9.2) were foundwithin the ensemble.

Special forms. We defined two specimens belong-ing to this category. They are special forms of bowlswith quadratic and oval bottoms, with plastic deco-

ration on the edge in the form of button-like bosses.The forms resemble small tubs (Fig. 9.3, 4).

Small ceramic forms. Miniature vessels belong tothis varying group. There are two exemplars in theset examined. One comes from the filling of clay pit29. It is not clear of what shape it is; however, itssurface is smooth natural, with plastic decoration(one small asymmetrically projecting boss on theconvexity). Second presents a small mushroom-likepot with engraved and plastic decoration.

Relative chronology

The pottery ensemble from the Lengyel Culture set-tlement in Bu≠any is very in-teresting as it has typical fea-tures of a young phase of thefirst stage of this culture. Fi-gure 10 denotes the divisionand synchronization of thefirst stage of the Lengyel cul-tural complex. Settlement cor-responding to this dating hasnot been completely proces-sed in Slovakia yet. But sincethe examined pottery set wasstudied and evaluated accor-ding to the Moravian PaintedWare Culture numerical code,it can be compared with ot-her localities of the Lengyelcultural complex processed insimilar way. In the process ofcomparing and evaluating,We took into considerationmostly the sites contempo-rary with the settlement in‘Kopanice’ and those whichenabled objective conclusionsthanks to their extent andquality. The locality of Kameggin Austria (Doneus 2001), Tě-∏etice-Kyjovice (Kazdová1984), Jaroměřice nad Rokyt-nou (Ko∏tuřík 1979), Popův-ky (Pále≠ková 2004) in Mora-via, and finally Svodín (Kli-≠ová 2004) and Santovka(Di∏kancová 2006) in Slova-kia met these conditions.

In our analysis we mostly exa-mined the decoration of pot-

Fig. 7. Bu≠any-Kopanice. Bowls and bowls on hollow pedestals: 1, 6 – struc-ture 04; 2, 3, 9 – structure 153; 4, 5, 10 – structure 60; 7 – structure 155;8 – structure 117.

Noémi Pa/inová

306

tery which, however, has ahigher evidentiary value forthe older stage of Lengyel Cul-ture. Painted decoration didnot offer many possibilitiesfor study as it is not well pre-served. Particular patterns ofdecoration were often notreadable at all, or we coulddetermine them only in part.Considering this fact, the tra-ces of painting (red, white, oryellow) could have been iden-tified on the surface of 181pieces. However, it was usu-ally impossible to determinethe particular type of decora-tion. The scale of colours istypical of classical LengyelCulture first stage. The appli-cation of this painting predo-minated on the surface ofbeakers (39 %). The follow-ing two types of painting oc-curred in the set: simple paintdecoration on the natural sur-face, and paint decorationwith incions. Tracking theplacement of painted decora-tion in particular parts of ves-sels was useless becausethere was a distortion causedby considerable fragmenta-tion and poor remaining con-dition. Only a small numberof discernible motifs remai-ned from the original paintedornaments. Vertical, horizontal plain bands (stri-pes) and their mutual combinations are the mostcommon. This motif has no specific value as evi-dence of chronology, as it does not occur evenly du-ring the whole of the first chronological stage ofLengyel Culture.

Incised ornaments, which have a better chance ofremaining in their original condition than painting,are important for the building of a smooth relativechronology. Incised ornaments present on the pot-tery from Bu≠any-Kopanice are made either in thedouble-thin line decoration technique, or in groupsof fine thin incised lines. While the first techniquementioned occurs on the material from the first aswell as the second Lengyel stage settlements, andhence is of continuous character, the second techni-

que is typical only of sites of the first stage. Thesmooth transition from multiple incised lines througha double, smoothly incised line, to the single incisedline is a generally known trend observable in the in-cising decorative technique of the Lengyel I stage.The number of techniques used on objects is shownin Figure 11. One of the usual decorative elementswas a strip, which was used in phase Ia of the Mo-ravian Painted Ware Culture; it is not very commonin phase Ib. Spirals and meanders were also fre-quently used, which corresponds to the situation ofyounger as well as older phases of the MoravianPainted Ware Culture. Zig-zag elements follow in po-pularity. Among the motifs on incised ornaments, thefollowing occur most frequently: true spiral (31x),zig- zag grouped in vertical stripes (7x), true mean-der (5x), vertical stripe (3x), true diamond (2x).

Fig. 8. Bu≠any-Kopanice. Beakers: 1, 2, 8 – structure 01; 3–6 – structure60; 7 – structure 04; 9 – structure 153.

the first and second stages ofthe Lengyel Culture in Slova-kia. This interim phase corre-sponds to the chronologicalposition of Moravian localitiesof phase Ib of the MoravianPainted Ware Culture. A spo-radically simple incised netmotif is registered also in theexcavation context of theLengyel II stage in Trakoviceand Vel’ké Kostol’any (Pavúk1981.Fig. 9.3, 5). An incisednet is also documented in theoldest Lengyel pottery fromHungary, e.g. Aszód (Kalicz1985).

In the set examined, plasticdecorative and serviceableforms are present. They are

applied in various pottery classes, together on thesurface of 160 specimens, i.e. their representation inthe entire set is 26 %. More than a quarter of the pla-stic elements occur on the surface of cups, as well ason bowls and bowls on hollow pedestals. Then potsand pot-like types follow (20 %), and 16 % decorateslarge-pitchers. In the foundation examined, bosseswithout a hole are definitely prevalent (thirteen va-riations recognized on the surface of 107 vessels al-together); their occurrence in percentage accordingto variations is shown in Figure 13. Bosses with ahole are in the second position. Two variations ofthese were identified in the set: vertically extended(2x) and circular (6x), both with a horizontal hole.These types are typical of the Ib phase of the Mora-vian Painted Ware Culture, but they occurred evenbefore. Relief adjustment on the surface of edges oc-curred in the case of three pot-like vessels; two ofthem with overprinted edges, and the third one hadan indented edge, or decorated with little notches. In

the examined set of pottery with serviceableforms three variants of horned ears occur:extended with a hole (13x), compressedwith a hole (6x) and smooth edged with ahole (2x). These shapes were chosen by Eli∏-ka Kazdová (1984) as chronologically impor-tant features of the Ia phase of the MoravianPainted Ware Culture pottery. A delicatechronological indicator is also the spread ofplastic decoration on the vessel. The over-whelming majority of plastic shapes wasplaced on the convexity, and on the neck ofcups, which is typical of Lengyel I.

Slovakia Moravia (independently) Moravia and Austriastage culture phase Subphase culture, phase subphase

A Ia1 Ia1Lengyel I Ia Ia2 Ia2

BMMK

Ia3MMK\MOG I

Ia2\Ib(1)Ib1

phase Ib Ib2Ib

Santovka Ib3Ib\IIa

Ic Ic


307

A true spiral motif is used in phase Ia as well Ib ofthe Moravian Painted Ware Culture; a motif of conti-nuous meanders with hooks (once in the ensem-ble) is very common in the phase Ib of the MMK (Ko-∏tuřík 1979); a zig-zag motif grouped in vertical stri-pes, is also very typical of phase MMK Ib. The rela-tion of motifs and the incised decoration techniquechosen is shown in Figure 12. It can be stated thatthe motifs which are typical of a certain phase aremade with the technique typical of this phase.

The range of motifs mentioned above enriches theincised motif in the form of a net applied on the ex-terior surface of a conical bowl on a hollow pede-stal, together with the element of an incised circleand half-arch (Fig. 7.1). It is formed with a simplethin line. Analogy to this kind of decoration can befound in the settlement of Santovka (Di∏kancová2006.Fig. 2.7,9; Pavúk 1981.Fig. 9.12; 1994.Fig.3.3), which represents the interim phase between

Fig. 9. Bu≠any-Kopanice. 1 – mushroom shaped vessel (structure 153); 2 –ladle with handle (structure 82); 3–4 – special bowls (3 – structure 117;4 – structure 60); 5–7 – horned handles (5 – structure 155; 6,7 – structu-re 153).

Fig. 10. Differentiation and synchronization of the first stageof the Lengyel cultural complex.

Noémi Pa/inová

308

Conclusion

The pottery presented in the ar-ticle is just a part (one third) ofthe whole assemblage excavatedin Bu≠any-Kopanice. However, itreflects well the characteristicsthat are assumed relevant for theentire pottery ensemble of thesite.

After evaluating the pottery set from the buildingcomplex of circular architecture ground plan, and se-lected structures processed in a database system, thefollowing conclusion can be stated:

The shapes of the set in general include bigger pain-ted pot-like vessels, large-pitchers, profiled bowls onhigh and low hollow pedestals, bowls with openedcollar and short lower half, and thin-walled cups withpainted and incised decoration.

On the basis of pottery shape and decoration ana-lysis, the typical features of the first stage of Leng-yel Culture are discernible in the set examined (pot-tery decorated by incisions and polychromic paint-ing – red, yellow and white, but not pastose). Clas-sical Lengyel Culture, with a typical incising orna-ment and mostly red painting, which is best com-parable to Moravian Painted Ware Culture pottery,was defined in Slovakia on the basis of pottery ma-terial from the settlements of Nitriansky Hrádok-Zá-me≠ek (To≠ík and Lichardus 1966), Vel’ké Hoste(Lichardus 1961), Koláre and Bardoňovo (Urmin-ský 1998), and on the basis of comparable units fromSvodín–Busahegy (Lichardus and πi∏ka 1970; Ne-mejcová-Pavúková 1995). According to Juraj Pavúk(1981.270), the finds from Vel’ké Hoste are youn-ger; hence they will probably not belong to the Leng-yel I phase. With the progressive increase of finds,a more detailed classification of stage Lengyel I seems

to be more atractive because qualitative and quanti-tative differentiation is obvious in the comparison offinds. The processing of the pottery from the Leng-yel settlement in Svodín in Slovakia (Kli≠ová 2004.97–107), Te∏etice-Kyjovice in Moravia (Kazdová1984) and Kamegg in Lower Austria (Doneus 2001)are among such attempts.

In the detailed analysis of incised ornaments on thepottery set from Bu≠any, the examined locality de-fies the frame of all the finds from Slovakia. Fromthe point of view of quality, the occurrence of inci-sed ornamentation, according to Juraj Pavúk (1981.270), is even approaching the situation in southernMoravia, where the incised ornamentation is signi-ficantly more frequent than in the west part of Slo-vakia. In this case the presumption of the existenceof a phase with a frequent occurrence of incised or-namentation in the south-west of Slovakia (from Ko-láre on Poiplie up to Bu≠any on Pova∫ie) could bepossible. If we concentrate on particular excavationunits, then after the Protolengyel group Lu∫ianky, inwhich the incised ornament is absolutely absent, wemust count with the developmental section withoutor only with rare occurrence of incised elements inLengyel I stage. (e.g. in Bardoňovo and Svodín). Af-ter that, the developmental section characterized byregular or unusually frequent occurrence of incisedornamentation follows. So we can assume, as Pavúk(1981.270) claims, that the pottery in stage Lengyel

Structure No. TotalIncised decoration

01 04 29 60 82 117 153 155 180techniquegroup of fine lines thin 1 0 4 1 3 0 2 5 0 16double-thin line 6 4 6 4 4 0 7 1 0 32simple thin line 1 2 3 0 2 0 2 0 1 11Total 8 6 13 5 9 0 11 6 1 59

Fig. 11. The amount of incised decoration techniques used in selectedstructures.

Incised decoration motif (codes after Podborsk y et al. 1977.179–188)Incised decoration

21 23 24 31 31, 32 34 31, 41 41 53, 85 71 81 91 93techniquegroup of fine lines thin 2 0 1 1 0 0 1 8 0 0 0 0 0double-thin line 1 1 0 3 1 0 0 22 0 0 2 1 0simple thin line 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 7Total 3 1 1 4 1 1 1 30 1 1 2 1 7

Fig. 12. The relation of the incised decoration technique and motif (21 – vertical stripe; 23 – fringe; 24– ladder-like stripe; 31 – true meander; 32 – meandroid; 34 – continuous meanders with hooks; 41 – truespirals; 53 – convex-concave star-shape;71 – cross in “X”-form; 81 – true diamond; 85 – net; 91 – conti-nuous multiple zig-zag; 93 – zig-zag grouped in vertical stripes).


309

I in the south-west of Slovakia underwent develop-ment from the phase without or only with rare oc-currence of incised ornamentation, through a phasewith regular and more frequent occurrence of inci-sed decoration. The next developmental trends ofthe final phase of the Lengyel Culture first stage areevident in finds from Santovka (Pavúk 1994), wherethe rare occurrence of incised pottery is again, and,moreover, the ornament itself is changing, too.

From the point of view of the decorative richness ofthe pottery examined, besides incised and painteddecoration, plastic elements are also dominant andpresented by the rich shape and size scale of the va-rious kinds of bosses. For the territory of Slovakiathe following conclusion is notable: only after thenot very widespread plastic decoration of the pot-tery of the Lu∫ianky group does the older stage ofLengyel pottery include an elaborated system of pla-stic decoration placement in the form of bosses.

The examined locality of Bu≠any-Ko-panice is of great importance for thedisposal of contemporary cultures,mainly via their typical decoration.The situation of archaeological con-text in the area examined and theanalysis of pottery in this site indicatecontinuous settlement during theyounger section of the first chronolo-gical stage of Lengyel Culture – Leng-yel IB phase. This phase can be more

exactly synchronized with MMK/MOG Ia (Ia2 and 3or Ia2/Ib1) in Moravia and Austria, with the LengyelIb stage in western Hungary, and with the youngerIVa phase of the Stroked Pottery Culture in the CzechRepublic, and at the same time continuously lockonto the transitional phase Santovka (Slovakia) –MMK/MOG Ib (Austria, Moravia) – Zengővárkony 3 –Mórágy-Tűzkődomb (Hungary).

An early draft of this paper was presented in 1984 atthe international conference in Nove Vozokany, Slo-vakia, and was later published in its proceedings. Iwould like to thank Professor Peter Romsauer andProfessor Jozef Bujna, who kindly gave me the Leng-yel Culture pottery finds from Bu≠any for analysis,and I also thank Dr. Mihael Budja, who invited me totake part in the 13th Neolithic Seminar and to pre-sent this research.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Fig. 13. Bosses without holes – occurrence in percentages accor-ding to variations.

REFERENCES

∴

BUJNA J., ROMSAUER P. 1980. Výskum v Bu≠anoch v roku1979. Archeologické výskumy a nálezy na Slovensku1979: 56–60.

1981. Tretia sezóna výskumu v Bu≠anoch. Archeologi-cké výskumy a nálezy na Slovensku 1980(1): 55–57.

1982. Závere≠ná výskumná sezóna v Bu≠anoch. Archeo-logické výskumy a nálezy na Slovensku 1981(1): 59–64.

1986. Siedlung und Kreisanlage der Lengyel-Kultur inBu≠any. In B. Chropovský and H. Friesienger (eds.), In-ternationales Symposium über die Lengyel-Kultur.Nitra-Wien: 27–35.

DIπKANCOVÁ S. 2006. Keramika zo sídliska lengyelskejkultúry v Santovke. Unpublished Dissertation. Bratislava.

DONEUS M. 2001. Die Keramik der mittelneolithischenKreisgrabenanlage von Kamegg, Niederösterreich. EinBeitrag zur Chronologie der Stufe MOG I der LengyelKultur. Mitteilungen der prähistorischen Kommissionder Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 46.Wien.

KALICZ N. 1983–1984. Übersicht über den Forschungs-stand der Entwicklung der Lengyel-Kultur und die ältesten‘Wehranlagen’ in Ungarn. Mitteilungen der Österreichi-schen Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Ur- und Frühgeschichte23–24: 271–293.

1985. Kőkori falu Aszódon. Múzeumi Füzetek Aszód.Aszód.

KARLOVSKÝ V. 1999. Rondel v Bu≠anoch ako mo∫né slne-≠né a mesa≠né observatórium. In I. Kuzma (ed.), Otázky

Noémi Pa/inová

310

neolitu a eneolitu na∏ich krajín–1998. Materialia Archeo-logica Slovaca SAV, Nitra: 111–124.

KÁROLYI M. 1983–1984. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungenbis 1980 in der befestigten Ansiedlung von Sé. Westun-garn. Mitteilungen der Österreichischen Arbeitsgemein-schaft für Ur- und Frühgeschichte 33–34: 293–307.

KAZDOVÁ E. 1984. Te∏etice-Kyjovice I. Star∏í stupeň kul-túry s moravskou malovanou keramikou. Univerzita J. E.Purkyně, Brno.

KLI∞OVÁ J. 2004. Spracovanie keramiky zo sídliska leng-yelskej kultúry vo Svodíne. In V. Janák and S. Stuchlík(eds.), Acta archaeologica Opaviensia. (Otázky neolitua eneolitu na∏ich zemí). Slezská univerzita v Opavě,Opava: 97–107.

KOπTUŘÍK P. 1979. Neolitické sídli∏tě s malovanou kera-mikou u Jaroměřic n. R. Studie Archeologického Ústavu∞SAV 7(1). Academia, Praha.

KUZMA I. 1998. Kruhové priekopové útvary na Slovensku(sú≠asný stav). In J. Prostředník (ed.), Otázky neolitu aeneolitu na∏ich zemí. OM∞R Turnov, Turnov-Hradec Krá-lové: 94–102.

2005. Archeologia lotnicza na Słowacji. In J. Nowakow-ski, A. Prinke and W. Rączkowski (eds.), Biskupin… ico dalej? Zdjęcia lotnicze w polskiej archeologii. In-stytut Prahistorii UAM, Ośrodek Ochrony DziedzictwaArcheologicznego, Muzeum Archeologiczne w Biskupi-nie, Poznańskie Towarzystvo Prehistoryczne. Poznań:457–478.

LICHARDUS J. 1961. Neolitické osídlenie Vel’kých Hostí.πtudijné Zvesti AÚ SAV 6: 41–50.

LICHARDUS J., πIπKA S. 1970. Záchranný výskum pohre-biska a sídliska lengyelskej kultúry vo Svodíne roku 1965.Slovenská archeológia 18: 311–352.

NĚMEJCOVÁ-PAVÚKOVÁ V. 1995. Svodín. Zwei Kreisgra-benanlagen der Lengyel-Kultur. Studia Archaeologica etMediaevalia 2. Bratislava.

1997. Kreisgrabenanlage der Lengyel-Kultur in Ru-∫indol-Borová. Studia Archaeologica et Mediaevalia3. Bratislava.

PÁLE∞KOVÁ O. 2004. Sídli∏te s moravskou malovanoukeramikou star∏ího stupně v Popůvkach, okr. Brno-ven-kov. Seminar work Masaryk University, Brno.

PAVÚK J. 1981. Sú≠asný stav ∏túdia lengyelskej kultúry naSlovensku. Památky archeologické 72: 255–299.

1991. Lengyel-culture fortified settlements in Slovakia.Antiquity 63: 348–357.

1994. Santovka – eine bedeutende Siedlung der Leng-yel-Kultur in der Slowakei. Archäologisches Korrespo-denzblatt 24: 167–177.

1998. Hlavné výsledky výskumu sídliska lengyelskejkultúry v Ωlkovciach. Slovenská archeológia 46(2):169–186.

PODBORSKÝ V. 1988. Te∏etice-Kyjovice 4. Rondel osadylidu s moravskou malovanou keramikou. Univerzita J.E. Purkyně, Brno.

PODBORSKÝ V. ET AL. 1977. Numerický kód moravskémalované keramiky. Problémy deskripcie v archeológii.Univerzita J. E. Purkyně, Brno.

TIRPÁK J. 1997. Geophysikalische Messungen urzeitlicherRondelle. In V. Nemejcová-Pavúková (ed.), Kreisgraben-anlage der Lengyel-Kultur in Ru∫indol-Borová. StudiaArchaeologica et Mediaevalia 3: 153–156.

TO∞ÍK A., LICHARDUS J. 1966. Star∏ia fáza slovensko-mo-ravskej mal’ovanej keramiky na juhozápadnom Sloven-sku. Památky Archeologické 57: 1–90.

TRNKA G. 1991. Studien zu mittelneolithischen Kreisgra-benanlagen. Mitteilungen der Prähistorischen Kommis-sion der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaf-ten 26. Wien.

URMINSKÝ J. 1998. Lengyelské osídlenie Slovenska nasklonku neolitu. Unpublished Dissertation. Masaryk Uni-versity Brno. Brno.

ZÁPOTOCKÁ M. 1983. Kruhové příkopy kultúry s vypícha-nou keramikou v Bylanech, okr. Kutná Hora. Archeolo-gické Rozhledy 35: 475–485.

the lengyel culture settlement in bu;any (preliminary

Documents