195–204.
MAMMALIAN REMAINS FROM KÖRÖS CULTURE SITES
IN HUNGARY
László Bartosiewicz
Institute of Archaeological Sciences, Eötvös Loránd University, H-1088 Budapest, Múzeum körút 4/b, Hungary;
bartwicz@yahoo.com
INTRODUCTION
Animal domestication reached the Carpathian Basin
from Southwest Asia during the 7th millennium BC. In the
Balkans, domesticates introduced from their home regions
thrived in dry environments closely resembling their native
habitats. In his pioneering studies, Joachim Boessneck
(1956, 7–10; 1962, 38) published early neolithic animal
bones assemblages of this type from Greece that have be-
come paradigmatic in the study of early animal keeping.
They were dominated by sheep/goat remains and showed a
negligible contribution by hunted game.
Animal exploitation in the Körös culture was first dis-
cussed by Sándor Bökönyi (1964, 88) concerning vertebrate
remains from Maroslele-Pana near Szeged, Hungary. Al-
though this site has recently undergone typo-chronological
revision (Paluch 2010), those 202 animal bones showed
proportions reminiscent of subsequently excavated Körös
culture assemblages in the area.
The idea of a wave-of-advance for farming across Eu-
rope was described by Al Ammermann and Luigi Luca Ca-
valli-Sforza (1973) who explained this phenomenon in terms
of a diffusive move of human populations termed the “demic
flow”. Earlier, Munro S. Edmonson (1961) had considered
“cultural’’ diffusion as the mechanism for the spread of farm-
ing, suggesting that technology could be passed on without
significant population movement. It is thus still poorly under-
stood how agriculture spread and whether the form of its first
occurrence was the same from region to region. Bökönyi’s
hypothesis was that Körös culture animal husbandry had
been a variant of Thessalian animal keeping under different
geographic conditions (Bökönyi 1974, 56) and one ill-
adapted to the marshy habitats of the Great Hungarian Plain.
Excavations at Röszke-Lúdvár were the first to yield a major
early Körös culture animal bone assemblage (Bökönyi 1974,
396). Others from the settlements of Szajol-Felsõföld (Vörös
1980, 57), Endrõd-Öregszõlõk 119 (Bökönyi 1992, 273),
Ecsegfalva 23B (Bartosiewicz 2007) and most recently from
Szolnok-Szanda (Biller in press) have reconfirmed the gross
1 Special thanks due to Anna Biller who released her unpublished data for the purpose of analysis.
195
framework of Sándor Bökönyi’s hypothesis. Research along
the northern fringes of the Körös culture, however, has of-
fered some intriguing new details on the complexity and ad-
vancement of early neolithic animal exploitation in Hungary.
One of the most pervasive ideas has been that the ex-
ploitation of domesticates shows a near-linear, straightfor-
ward development through which [technically inferior]
hunting-gathering strategies were replaced by [more ad-
vanced] productive economies. Early observations have be-
come topoi that are worth re-evaluating in light of new evi-
dence concerning early neolithic animal exploitation in
Hungary.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The study area of this chapter is limited to archaeologi-
cal sites within the present political borders of Hungary. It
includes the northern and central portions of the Great Plain
largely occupying the eastern half of the Carpathian Basin,
referred to as the Great Hungarian Plain in Hungarian ar-
chaeology (Fig. 1).
Over two decades ago Sándor Bökönyi (1989, 14) men-
tioned 37 early neolithic animal bone assemblages in his
short review article on the Körös–Starèevo complex. Some
of these, however, have been re-evaluated from a relative
chronological point of view and Starèevo sites in the hilly
region of southwestern Hungary have not been included in
this study. In combination with some newly excavated sites
altogether11 assemblages, listed in Table 1, were included
in the present analysis.1
This restricted set of Körös culture sites embodies a het-
erogeneous data set. Nagykörû-Tsz. Gyümölcsös, Kõtelek-
Huszársarok and Ibrány-Nagyerdõ are represented by large,
single pits. Meanwhile, animal bones from Ecsegfalva,
Endrõd 119 and Szolnok-Szanda originate from large-scale,
systematic excavations. Water sieving was carried out only
at Ecsegfalva and Ibrány-Nagyerdõ.
Tracking down the “very first farmers” has long been a
popular outdoor sport on the Great Hungarian Plain. Recent
The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

Fig. 1. The geographical distribution of major Körös culture sites in the Carpathian Basin. Sites with animal bone assemblages dis-
cussed in this paper are marked by white dots.

Table 1
Körös culture faunal assemblages from the Great Hungarian Plain

Complete site name* Code County NISP Source

Dévaványa-Barcéi kishalom D Békés 303 Vörös 1997
Ecsegfalva 23B E Békés 4377 Bartosiewicz 2007
Endrõd-Öregszõlõk 119 En Békés 22355 Bökönyi 1992
Gyálarét-Szilágyi-majora G Csongrád 293 Bökönyi 1974
Hódmezõvásárhely-Bodzáspart H Csongrád 35 Vörös 1980
Ibrány-Nagyerdõ I Szabolcs 113 Kovács, Gál & Bartosiewicz 2010
Kõtelek-Huszársarok K Szolnok 67 Vörös 1980
Nagykörû-Tsz Gyümölcsös N Szolnok 460 Raczky et al. 2010
Röszke-Lúdvár R Csongrád 1397 Bökönyi 1974
Szajol-Felsõföld S Szolnok** 1361 Vörös 1980
Szolnok-Szanda Sz Szolnok 6525 Biller, unpublished
Tiszaszõlõs-Domaháza T Szolnok 1673 Domboróczki 2010
*The short site names used throughout the text are marked in boldface print
** Szolnok is short for the administrative composite of Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok county

advances in Körös culture archaeozoological research in
Hungary have been stimulated by a number of favourable
developments including:
– the increasing availability of targeted and systemati-
cally collected radiocarbon dates (Whittle et al. 2002;
2005),
– the discovery of new sites north of the “classical”
Körös culture distribution area all the way to the Tisza River
and beyond,
– a greater awareness of sampling bias (Bartosiewicz &
Gál 2007),
– the introduction of finer excavation techniques (Bar-
tosiewicz 2007; Raczky et al. 2010; Kovács, Gál & Barto-
siewicz. 2010),
– complementary information gained by implementing
various sophisticated biochemical methods (e.g. Craig et al.
2005; Edwards et al. 2007).
Of these points, the first three are of direct relevance
here. A diverse body of 14C dates has been accumulated for
nine of the eleven faunal assemblages,2 including conven-
tional (Berlin, Debrecen) as well as AMS (Oxford, Poznañ,
Vienna) measurements as follows (see Oross & Siklósi in
this volume):
1. Ecsegfalva 23: ca. 5800/5750–5650 cal BC (Oxford, 39
AMS)
2. Endrõd 119: 5840 (68.2%) 5560 cal BC (Oxford, 9 AMS)
3. Gyálarét-Szilágyi-major: 6070–5840 (68.2%; Berlin 1
conv.)
4. Ibrány-Nagyerdõ 5620 (68.2%) 5480 cal BC (Poznañ, 2
AMS)

2 Help by Dr. Zsuzsanna Siklósi is gratefully acknowledged: she provided a review of 14C dates for this paper.

196
 László Bartosiewicz: Mammalian remains from Körös ...

5. Kõtelek-Huszársarok: 5720 (68.2%) 5520 cal BC

(Berlin 1 conv., Vienna 1 AMS), the latter (5720–5640;
68.2%) may be considered more reliable.
6. Nagykörû-Tsz Gyümölcsös: 6000 (68.2%) 5620 cal BC
(Poznañ, 3 AMS; Vienna, 3 AMS)
7. Röszke-Lúdvár: 5980–5780 (68.2%; Debrecen 1 conv.)
8. Szajol-Felsõföldek: 6220–5080 (68.2%; Debrecen 2
conv., 230 yrs error)
9. Szolnok-Szanda: 5990 (68.2%) 5630 cal BC (68.2%;
Berlin 4 conv.)
The geographical locations of individual sites by gross,
century-long time intervals are shown in Figure 2. Typical
of the Great Hungarian Plain, the average altitude of these
lowland settlements established on ancient terraces, levees
and other small elevations is 79.4 m (standard deviation =
7.6 m) above sea level.

RESULTS
It has been hypothesized that domesticates already
known in the Balkans reached the Carpathian Basin during
the early neolithic climatic optimum. Although the mode of
diffusion is still debated, the northward advance of material
culture into the Carpathian Basin may be traced archaeolog-
ically beyond the southern border of modern-day Hungary
that cross-cuts the Körös culture distribution area.

Normative description
First general trends in the animal bone assemblages need
to be outlined. Their variability will then be studied by indi-
vidual site. Domesticates were herded into new areas, be-
coming part of a landscape previously barely modified by
low density hunter-gatherer populations. The numbers of
identifiable bone specimens originating from domestic ani-
mals at the 11 Körös culture sites studied are listed in Table 2.
Some assemblages are indeed similar to those of the
pre-pottery neolithic in Thessaly. Whoever the people of the
Körös culture were, most relied on a characteristically
south-eastern composition of livestock. Sheep/goat remains
dominated over those of cattle in all samples of representa-
tive size. Sheep and goat on average yielded almost 3/4 of
NISP from domesticates (cattle was represented only by
1/2). Unfortunately, these two small ruminants are seldom
distinguished in site reports, but the limited subsample iden-
tifiable to species shows a near 10/1 ratio of sheep to goat
(NISP=3444/369). The remains of domestic pig and dog are
sporadic (around 1%) in the 11 assemblages. Sheep and
goat would seem to be ill-suited to the marshland that cov-
ered much of the Great Hungarian Plain prior to 19th cen-
tury river regulations. While the origins of pottery styles are
sometimes difficult to track down, from a purely archaeo-
logical point of view, domestic animals have the immense
advantage that sheep and goat had to be imported into Eu-
rope as they have no ancestors that could be domesticated
on this continent. They could only be spread by diffusion
from Southwest Asia, even if humans did not follow, but
flocks were handed over from community to community.
Fig. 2 The geographical and chronological distribution of
archaeozoological assemblages listed in Table 1.
The wild ancestors of cattle and pig were present in the
Great Plain, but they were exploited by hunting rather than
domestication. Mitochondrial DNA studies showed no di-
rect relationship between local aurochs and neolithic cattle
in Ecsegfalva (Edwards & Bradley 2007). The composition
of far smaller samples of large game is shown in Table 3.
Overall, large game made up less than 10% of NISP relative
to domesticates (NISP=3205/33 599). Wild animal bone
and antler played very small roles even in bone manufactur-
ing (Choyke 2007), although shed antler could have been
collected without ever having to hunt the stag himself.
Within this small contingent, aurochs and wild pig were
of similar importance. The relatively high contribution of
red deer is potentially biased by pieces of antler not distin-
guished from skeletal bone in earlier publications. Gather-
ing shed antler and high fragmentation may result in the
over-representation of red deer by NISP, giving a false im-
pression of intensive hunting.3 Red deer made up almost 1/3

3 Overemphasis on antler is less of a problem in the case of roe deer whose antlers are smaller, therefore not as easily fragmented and tend to be less
frequently gathered for manufacturing.

197
The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

Table 2
NISP values for domestic animals at the 11 Körös culture settlements

Cattle Sheep Goat Sheep/goat Pig Dog

Total
(Bos taurus) (Ovis arie) (Capra hircus) (Caprinae) (Sus domesticus) (Canis familiaris)
Gyálarét 65 136 10 3 214
Röszke 153 631 14 34 832
Nagykörû 75 35 1 302 15 6 434
Endrõd 5139 2332 298 12717 140 87 20713
Ecsegfalva 436 408 9 3067 66 26 4012
Hódmezõvásárhely 15 8 23
Kõtelek 23 22 45
Szajol 576 680 2 4 1262
Dévaványa 186 98 3 1 288
Ibrány 17 8 11 36
Szolnok 1557 571 58 3428 93 33 5740
Tiszaszõlõs 389 190 37 107 723
Domestic total 8631 3634 369 20999 389 300 33599
Domestic livestock
25.1 10.6 1.1 61.2 1.1 0.9 100.0
distributions, %

Table 3
NISP values for large game at the 11 Körös culture settlements

Aurochs Red deer Roe deer Wild ass Brown bear

Wild pig
(Bos (Cervus (Capreolus (Equus Equus sp. Equid (Ursus Total
(Sus scrofa)
primigenius) elaphus) capreolus) hydruntinus) arctos)
Gyálarét 13 37 11 13 1 75
Röszke 72 75 307 54 17 525
Nagykörû 2 4 8 9 23
Endrõd 243 376 138 671 16 1444
Ecsegfalva 117 19 30 80 2 248
Hódmezõvásárhely 2 2 2 6
Kõtelek 2 2 3 2 9
Szajol 48 16 13 9 1 87
Dévaványa 3 4 1 8
Ibrány 1 36 15 13 1 1 67
Szolnok 180 115 235 147 21 2 14 714
Tiszaszõlõs 27 65 289 124 7 512
Total 710 749 1049 1124 67 4 14 1 3718
Large game
19.1 20.1 28.2 30.2 1.8 0.1 0.4 0.0 100.0
distributions, %

of the pooled assemblage of large game remains. Equids are
the least well represented large game. However, together
with the dominance of roe deer remains they are indicative
of open grassland and gallery forests that may also have
been a preferred habitat of the extinct aurochs. A single oc-
currence of brown bear bone in the north at Ibrány-Nagy-
erdõ represents the only carnivore in this category.
The heterogeneous set of small game, sometimes re-
ferred to as fur-bearing animals, includes an odd admixture
of insectivores, rodents, lagomorphs and carnivores. When
compared to the bones of domestic livestock, these species
(Table 4) comprise only 1.5% of NISP at Körös culture set-
tlements.
On average almost half of the small game remains origi-
nate from brown hare, a bona fide prey item that could be
easily hunted for both meat and fur by just about anyone us-
ing a snare or stick. Hare prefers grassland habitats and the
forest edge therefore it is indicative of the similar, open en-
vironments favoured by roe deer and wild ass. It must have
been easily available even on cultivated land. The interpre-
tation of the second most common fur-bearing animal, red
fox (providing nearly 1/3 of the small game remains), is

198
 László Bartosiewicz: Mammalian remains from Körös ...

Table 4
NISP values for small game at the 11 Körös culture settlements

(Erinaceus concolor)

(Lepus europaeus)

(Mustela putorius)
(Cricetus cricetus)

(Mustela nivalis)

(Felis sylvestris)
(Martes martes)

(Vulpes vulpes)
(Meles meles)
(Castor fiber)

(Canis lupus)
B ro w n ha re

(Lynx lynx)
Hedgehog

Mustelid
Hamster

Wild cat

Red fox
Marten
B a dg er

Polecat

Weasel
B ea v er

Total
L y nx

Wo lf
Gyálarét 4 4
Röszke 8 7 1 2 7 15 40
Nagykörû 2 1 3
Endrõd 137 13 1 2 2 29 14 198
Ecsegfalva 1 32 1 3 80 117
Hódmezõvásárhely 1 4 1 6
Kõtelek 4 9 13
Szajol 1 5 3 3 12
Dévaványa 1 6 7
Ibrány 1 7 2 10
Szolnok 2 2 31 6 1 4 2 3 20 71
Tiszaszõlõs 9 6 4 1 9 29
Total 1 23 2 223 34 6 6 2 3 12 2 40 156 510
Small game % 0.2 4.5 0.4 43.8 6.7 0.4 1.2 0.4 0.6 2.4 0.4 7.8 30.8 100.0

more uncertain. In the absence of cut marks, especially addition to the small sample from Nagykörû-Tsz Gyümöl-
those indicative of skinning, it is difficult to identify which csös. The latter is also the oldest within this group, invari-
animals were hunted and which bones originate from bur- ably characterized by a high contribution by bones from
rowing individuals unless detailed in situ examination of the sheep and goat, exceeding well over 50%. The largest of
bone deposit took place. The same holds true for badger and these assemblages, Endrõd 119, defines the character of the
hamster. It cannot be ruled out that these animals were overall picture expressed in the Total for all 11 sites at the
hunted, but in the absence of human modification of their bottom of the graph.
bones they may also be considered secondary, “taphonomic There seems to be a widely held belief that animal-
gain”. keeping and hunting-gathering were of comparable impor-
Among small game, wolf and lynx represent borderline tance in Körös culture economies. This is based on the ob-
cases as the largest species in this list. Both may have been servation that at some settlements bones of domesticates
occasionally hunted by shepherds as vermin in the form of dominated while at others wild animal remains yielded high
Schutzjagd although, in spite of all potential animosity, their percentages. Such superficial assertions, however, tend to
rare pelts must have been held in high esteem (cf. Bartosie- rely on widely varying sample sizes. The number of animal
wicz 1993). The rarity of hunting these predators is clearly species identified depends on assemblage size (Grayson
shown by the fact that their remains occur exclusively in 1984, 137). When decimal logarithms of the numbers of
large assemblages where variability is higher. taxa identified (y) are plotted against the numbers of identi-
fiable specimens (x) in the 11 Körös culture assemblages
Comparisons between sites (Fig. 4) the resulting trend may be described as follows:
In Figure 3, results concerning individual sites are sum-
marized in percentual terms. Ratios for the four meat-pur- y = 4.736 x 0.144
pose domesticates are compared to those of pooled large
game as an indicator of two often contrasted forms of ani- The high coefficient of correlation (r=0.906; P=0.000)
mal exploitation: hunting and farming. displays a substantial, statistically significant exponential
High percentages of game are typical of Ibrány-Nagy- relationship between NISP and the number of species in the
erdõ, one of the latest sites as well as Gyálarét-Szilágyi-ma- set of 11 early neolithic samples. Some sites falling above
jor and Röszke-Lúdvár, two of the earliest Körös culture the trend line in Figure 4 contain disproportionately high
settlements under discussion here. The lowest third of the numbers of species: these include Röszke-Lúdvár of the
graph is dominated by large, “typical” Körös culture assem- oldest Körös culture sites, Ecsegfalva 23 and Ibrány-Nagy-
blages (Endrõd 119, Ecsegfalva 23, Szolnok-Szandaa) in erdõ. Once the number of species identified exceeds 5 (the

199
The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary
Fig. 3. The percentual composition of identifiable animal remains at the 11 sites available for study. Numbers listed with site names in-
dicate NISP values.
“neolithic package”: dog, sheep, goat, cattle, pig), new ma-
mmals can only added from the wild fauna. This is a stark
reminder that in small samples the odd random element
plays a far more pivotal role: a few wild animal bones may
create the false impression of “intensive hunting” in terms
of unsubstantiated percentages: the proportion of wild ani-
mal remains tends to be overstated in small assemblages
(Bartosiewicz 2007, 297).
In addition to taxonomic diversity, the relationship be-
tween assemblage size and the contribution of sheep/goat
remains was also studied. Since ratio values cannot be
safely used in parametric statistics (Atchley et al. 1976) as
assemblage size distributions are rarely normal, the relation-
ship between these variables was calculated using Spear-
man’s rank correlation. A statistically significant (rs =
0.596, P = 0.031) Spearman rank correlation has already
been found between NISP and the percentual contribution
of all domesticates (Kovács, Gál & Bartosiewicz 2010, 250,
Fig. 9). When sheep and goat are singled out for a similar
comparison, the high rank correlation between assemblage
size and the contribution of sheep/goat is even more clearly
expressed (rs=0.678, P=0.024). Conversely, the “impor-
tance of hunting” tends to be represented by rather small as-
4 The inclusion of relatively late Szolnok-Szanda deflated this coefficient of correlation to r = 0.669, P£0.050.
200
semblages, while convincingly large samples (NISP1000)
all show the overwhelming dominance of sheep/goat re-
mains (Fig. 5, upper right quarter). Of these large samples
shown in the graph only Röszke (R) had major quantities of
red deer remains (bone vs. antler were not specified in the
original report). The low, 15% contribution of sheep at the
site of Tiszaszõlõs is partly influenced by the great NISP
value of domestic cattle. Simply put, small assemblages, do
not represent “hunting” vs. “animal keeping” as reliably as
would have been suggested on the basis of percentages
alone. Some of the difference may be a product of sample
size and should therefore always be considered within the
broader archaeological context.
Chronological aspects
In Figure 6, the latitudes for each site with studied fau-
nal assemblages are plotted against time in BP terms. Ex-
cluding the relatively late Körös site of Szolnok-Szanda,4
the “wave of advancement” represented by settlements with
known faunal assemblages in this microregion is character-
ized by a high and significant linear correlation (r = 0.862, P
= 0.020). According to the pertinent regression equation (y
= 0.004x + 74.722) the well known northward expansion is
 László Bartosiewicz: Mammalian remains from Körös ...

Fig. 4. The size-dependent taxonomic diversity of assemblages Fig. 5. The positive relationship between assemblage size
available for study. Cases falling above the trend line may be con- (NISP) and the percentual contributions by sheep/goat. Assem-
sidered rich in species relative to their sizes. blages of established Körös culture sites of reliable sizes (upper
right quarter) tend to be dominated by the remains of these two do-
mesticates. For site codes see Table 1.
evident: new Körös culture settlements, on average, would
have been established each year some 340 m more north-
wards. This meaningless distance could be translated into a
ca. 9 km move over a human generation. The quantitative
“wave-of-advance” model (Ammermann & Cavalli-Sforza
1973) made use of an estimated annual speed of 1 km. The
trend calculated for these Körös culture animal bone assem-
blages estimates a decelerated mean “speed” of advance-
ment compared to that overall process as would have been
expected on the basis of the “arrhytmic diffusion” model
mentioned by Koz³owski and Raczky (2010, 353) in their
recent summary of the problem. In reality, however, this lo-
cal tendency is a composite phenomenon resulting from a
diverse set of factors, whose local varieties contribute to the
overall trend.5
The time interval within which Körös Culture ceramics
occurred in the Upper Tisza region has recently been re-de-
fined by 14C dates from Nagykörû-Tsz Gyümölcsös and
Tiszaszõlõs-Domaháza-puszta. Logically, it may have been
in the Tokaj area of the Upper Tisza region where people of Fig. 6. Possibly arrhythmic and arrested “waves of advance-
the Körös Culture both from the Great Hungarian Plain ment” as shown in the presence of sheep and goat in Körös culture
(south) and Méhtelek (east) interacted with any hypothetical animal bone assemblages in Hungary. A potential outlier, the site
Mesolithic population. The new dates show that more-or- of Szolnok–Szanda was left out of the calculation. For site codes
less synchronously with the beginning of Körös sites in the see Table 1
southern Great Hungarian Plain, a frontier zone was emerg-
ing this far north between 5880 and 5650 cal BC as well as
5850 and 5620 cal BC (Domboróczki 2005, 12). This obser- In Figure 6, the lowest contribution by sheep/goat is ev-
vation is directly supported by the archetypical, Körös Cul- ident in the two earliest (Gyálarét and Röszke) in the south
ture form of animal exploitation practised at the site of and one of the latest (Ibrány) settlements in the north. The
Nagykörû-Tsz Gyümölcsös (Raczky et al. 2010, 159). remainder of the sites (especially the large, “typical” Körös

5 Analogous cycles of historically documented deceleration display a repeatedly protracted decline in mobile pastoralism by various [eastern] ethnic
groups (from Sarmatians to Cumanians, including the Hungarians themselves), as they were forced to adapt their animal husbandry practices to
ever-changing natural and particularly social environments within the limited territory of the Carpathian Basin (Bartosiewicz 2003).

201
The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary
Fig. 7. Arthrotic deformations in the elbow joints of early neolithic sheep from Endrõd are indicative of high morbidity in an unfavour-
able environment. The specimen on the left hand side shows signs of a compound fracture of the ulna.
culture assemblages) occupy an intermediate position both
chronologically and in geographical terms. Outliers include
the small sample of Kõtelek (with less than 50% sheep/goat
bone) and Szolnok where the exploitation of small rumi-
nants persisted, representing a “typical” Körös culture fau-
nal profile. Bökönyi (1989, 13) suggested that due to indu-
bitable environmental pressure in marshy habitats on their
livestock, Körös populations had to resort to hunting, fowl-
ing and fishing to complement their diets. The chronologi-
cal and geographical distribution of sites in Figure 6 refines
this picture. It looks as if newly settled Körös herders (re-
gardless of their absolute chronological position) had to
complement their diets more heavily, relying on natural re-
sources as is suggested by animal remains from Gyálarét
and Röszke in the south and centuries later Ibrány in the
north. The rest occupy a better established middle ground,
where sheep herding economies may not thrive but can sus-
tain Körös culture pastoral tradition, largely relying on their
flocks for animal protein. Szolnok represents a special case
where this form of subsistence survived until a late date.
In summary, the trend of advancement is slow but
strongly linear, while settlements along this trend represent
various phases in their complementary attitudes to domestic
vs. natural animal resources. Unfortunately, the assem-
blages available for study do not permit conclusions to be
drawn concerning the areas in between the small clusters of
settlements shown in Figure 6; some areas have been simply
more intensively investigated. This potential sampling bias,
however, does not discredit the idea that various degrees of
Körös culture adaptations could be observed — similar in
south and north and different from the more intensively in-
vestigated central area.
202
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
The expansion of the Körös culture is unlikely to have
been the result of a straightforward, targeted migration, but
rather a protracted but cumulative translocation of an
ever-changing, elusive settlement pattern of mobile agricul-
turalists. While the earliest Körös culture sites in Hungary
have been dated to ca. 6200–6000 BC (Whittle et al. 2002,
107–117), individual settlements display only short-term,
temporary occupation. Ecsegfalva 23, one of the best stud-
ied settlements, was firmly assigned to ca. 5800–5650 cal
BC indicating that the time spans of occupation represented
by differing parts of the site were all likely to have been rel-
atively short. Even the longest occupation seen in Trench
23B, singled out for study here, was probably not longer
than three human generations. If nothing else, the intensity
of spring and summer floods must have evidently forced
seasonal movements on herders (Pike-Tay 2007), until they
could return to the rejuvenated pastures in the low lying
floodplain areas. In the absence of known permanent core
settlements, such movements, largely following annual cy-
cles, should not be confused with historically documented,
classical long-distance transhumance in the area of the
Great Hungarian Plain. However, the functional similarity
is undeniable, for example with the composition of 19th cen-
tury herds dominated by sheep and merely complemented
by goat and cattle (Bartosiewicz 1999).
Researchers have long tried establishing physical fron-
tiers in the natural environment that halted the northward
expansion of the Körös culture in the Carpathian Basin. The
much publicized “Central European-Balcanic agroecolo-
gical barrier” (Kertész & Sümegi 2001) marked one attempt

to provide a comprehensive ecological explanation. Prior to
excavations at Ecsegfalva, the so-called Sárrét marshland
(that once covered some 90,000 hectares north of the Körös
river, in the Berettyó and Hortobágy river valleys) was con-
sidered a major obstacle. Towards the north and west, the
Tisza River was thought to have been another natural barrier
before Körös culture sites were identified on its right bank.
Undoubtedly, large sections of the Great Hungarian
Plain became difficult, seasonally impenetrable terrain dur-
ing the time of at least biannual major floods. The eventual
dissolution of the aforementioned hypothetical natural bar-
riers shows, however, that seeking solely environmental
factors behind the expansion, stagnation and disappearance
of the Körös culture is insufficient. Unfortunately, the re-
mains of domestic animals have been routinely interpreted
as “index fossils”, i.e. indicators of the natural environment.
This strengthened environmental determinism in research,
sometimes leading to circular reasoning. Habitat recon-
structions based on these finds are biased by anthropogenic
“noise” (Bartosiewicz 2001). This primary human effect,
however, is culturally idiosyncratic: wild animals were
hunted selectively and at the same time domestic animals
could be herded far away from their most preferred habitats.
The deposition of bones, typically in the form of food re-
mains, is far from properly representing “faunas”.
While archaeological evidence for the Körös culture
evidently tapers away in a north-western direction within
the Great Hungarian Plain, the importance of human agency
influencing the chains of decision-making that facilitated
daily life should not be overlooked. Körös culture sheep
herders may have perceived their new, marshy environment
as a “marginal zone” from a cognitive point of view (Raczky
et al. 2010). They periodically adapted to it through opportu-
nistic hunting, fowling, fishing and gathering. However, they
seem to have stuck to what seems to be their own, tradi-
tional form of animal keeping in the face of the mounting
difficulties of sheep herding in a marshy environment. In-
creasing environmental stress on early neolithic sheep pop-
ulations in temperate Europe, including the Körös culture in
Hungary, has been made evident in the palaeopa- thological
record (Bartosiewicz 2008). The conspicuously meagre
sizes of sheep bones recorded at the typical settlements of
Ecsegfalva and Endrõd (Bartosiewicz 2007, 293, Fig. 14.8)
fall in line with these observations.
The heavy emphasis on the near-monocultural exploi-
tation of sheep and the relative disregard of the local wild
fauna at established Körös culture settlements may streng-
then arguments for a demic diffusion. This persistence seems
to suggest that sheep and goat were introduced by de facto
pastoral communities to the Carpathian Basin, who tried to
maintain their traditional pastoral way of life, possibly be-
cause local power-structures and social status were depend-
ent on sheep as a symbol of wealth. Game as well as pig, in
spite of being far more suitable for the local habitats, seem
to have been of cursory interest to these herders. It remains a
question whether this consistent pattern stemmed from
communal memory (spread through demic diffusion) or,
less probably, an odd “technological” trend of adopting
food production alien to the mesolithic inhabitants of the
Great Hungarian Plain.
203
László Bartosiewicz: Mammalian remains from Körös ...
REFERENCES
Ammerman A. & Cavalli-Sforza L. L. 1973. A population model
for the diffusion of early farming in Europe. In Renfrew C.
(ed.). The Explanation of Culture Change. London, 343–358.
Atchley A. H., Gaskins C. T. & Anderson, D. 1976. Statistical
properties of ratios I. Empirical results. Systematic Zoology
25, 137–138.
Bartosiewicz L. 1993. Late Medieval lynx skeleton from Hungary.
In Clason A., Payne S. & Uerpmann H.-P. (eds), Skeletons in
her cupboard. (= Oxbow Monograph 34). Oxford, 5–18.
Bartosiewicz L. 1999. The role of sheep versus goat in meat con-
sumption at archaeological sites. In Bartosiewicz L. & Green-
field H. (eds). Transhumant pastoralism in Southern Europe.
Budapest, 47–60.
Bartosiewicz L. 2001. Archaeozoology or zooarchaeology?: A
problem from the last century. Archaeologia Polona 39, 75–
86.
Bartosiewicz L. 2003. A millennium of migrations: Protohistoric
mobile pastoralism in Hungary. In Wayne King F. & Porter C.
M. (eds), Zooarchaeology: Papers to Honor Elizabeth S.
Wing. (= Bulletin of the Florida Museum of Natural History
44). 101–130.
Bartosiewicz L. 2007. Mammalian bone. In Whittle A. (ed.), The
Early Neolithic on the Great Hungarian Plain: investigations
of the Körös culture site of Ecsegfalva 23, Co. Békés. (= Varia
Archaeologica Hungarica 21). Budapest, 287–325.
Bartosiewicz L. 2008. Environmental stress in early domestic
sheep. In Miklíková Z. & Thomas R. (eds), Current Research
in Animal Palaeopathology: Proceedings of the Second Ani-
mal Palaeopathology Working Group Conference. (= British
Archaeological Reports, International Series 1844). Oxford,
3–13.
Bartosiewicz L. & Gál E. 2007. Sample size and taxonomic rich-
ness in mammalian and avian bone assemblages from archaeo-
logical sites. Archeometriai Mûhely 2007/1, 37–44. http://
www.ace.hu/am/2007_1/AM-2007-01-BL.pdf
Boessneck J. 1956. Zu den Tierknochen aus neolitischen Sied-
lungen Thessaliens. Berichte der Römisch-Germanisches
Kommission 36, 1–51.
Boessneck J. 1962. Die Tierreste aus Argissa Magula vom prä-
keramischen Neolithikum bis zum mittleren Bronzezeit. In
Milojèiæ V., Boessneck J. & Hopf M.: Die deutschen Ausgra-
bungen auf der Argissa Magula in Thessalien I. Bonn, 27–99.
Bökönyi S. 1964. A maroslele-panai neolithikus telep gerinces
faunája – The vertebrate fauna of the neolithic site of Maros-
lele-Pana. Archeologiai Értesítõ 91, 87–93.
Bökönyi S. 1974. History of Domestic Animals in Central and
Eastern Europe. Budapest.
Bökönyi S. 1989. Animal husbandry of the Körös-Starèevo com-
plex: its origin and development. Bökönyi S. 1989. (ed.), Neo-
lithic of Southeastern Europa and its Near Eastern Connec-
tions. (= Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 2). Budapest, 13–16.
Bökönyi, S. 1992. The Early Neolithic vertebrate fauna of Endrõd
119. In Bökönyi S. (ed). Cultural and landscape changes in
south-east Hungary I. Reports on the Gyomaendrõd Project (=
Archaeolingua Main Series 1). Budapest, 195–299.
Choyke A. M. 2007. Objects for a lifetime – tools for a season: the
bone tools from Ecsegfalva 23. In Whittle A. (ed.), The Early
Neolithic on the Great Hungarian Plain: investigations of the
Körös culture site of Ecsegfalva 23, Co. Békés. (= Varia
Archaeologica Hungarica 21). Budapest, 641–666.
Choyke A. M. 2009. Grandmother’s Awl: Individual and Collec-
tive Memory through Material Culture. In Barbiera I., Choyke
A. & Rasson J. A. (eds), Materializing Memory, Archaeologi-
cal Material Culture and the Semantics of the Past. (= British
The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary
Archaeological Reports, International Series 1977). Oxford,
21–40.
Craig O. E., Chapman J., Heron, C., Willis L. H., Bartosiewicz L.,
Taylor G., Whittle, A. & Collins M. 2005. Did the first farmers
of central and eastern Europe produce dairy foods? Antiquity
79, 882–894.
Domboróczki L. 2005. A Körös-kultúra északi elterjedési hatá-
rának problematikája a Tiszaszõlõs–Domaháza-pusztán vég-
zett ásatás eredményeinek fényében – The problem of the
Northern extension of the Körös Culture in the light of excava-
tion results from Tiszaszõlõs–Domaháza. Archeometriai
Mûhely 2:2, 5–15. (http://www.ace.hu/am)
Domboróczki L. 2010. Report on the excavations at Tiszaszõlõs–
Domaháza-puszta and a new model for the spread of the Körös
culture. In Koz³owski J. K. & Raczky P. (eds), Neolithization
of the Carpathian Basin: Norhternmost distribution of the
Starèevo/Körös culture. Kraków–Budapest, 137–176.
Edmonson M. S. 1961. Neolithic Diffusion Rates. Current Anthro-
pology 2:2, 71–102.
Edwards C. J. & Bradley D. G. 2007. Ancient DNA analysis of
aurochsen. In Whittle A. (ed.), The Early Neolithic on the
Great Hungarian Plain. Investigations of the Körös culture
site of Ecsegfalva 23, County Békés. (= Varia Archaeologica
Hungarica 21). Budapest, 327–330.
Edwards C. J., Bollongino R., Scheu A., Chamberlain A., Tresset
A., Vigne J-D., Baird J. F., Larson G., Ho S. Y. W., Heuping
T. W., Shapiro B., Freeman A. R., Thomas M. G., Arbogast
R-M., Arndt B., Bartosiewicz L., Benecke N., Budja M.,
Chaix L., Choyke A. M., Conqueugniot E., Döhle H.-J.,
Göldner H., Hartz S., Helmer D., Herzig B., Hongo H., Mash-
kour M., Özdogan M., Pucher E., Roth G., Schade-Lindig S.,
Schmölke U., Schulting R. J., Stephan E., Uerpmann H.-P.,
Vörös I., Voytek B., Bradley D. G. & Burger J. 2007. Mito-
chondrial DNA shows a Near Eastern Neolithic origin of do-
mestic cattle and no indication of domestication of European
aurochs. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 274, 1377–1385.
Grayson D. K. 1984. Quantitative Zooarchaeology. New York.
Kertész R. & Sümegi P. 2001. Theories, critiques and a model:
Why did the expansion of the Körös-Starèevo culture stop in
the centre of the Carpathian Basin? In Kertész R. & Makkay J.
(eds), From the Mesolithic to the Neolithic. Proceedings of the
International Archaeological Conference held in the Dam-
janich Museum of Szolnok, September 22–27, 1996. (= Archa-
204
eolingua Main Series 11). Budapest, 193–214.
Kovács E. Zs., Gál E. & Bartosiewicz L. 2010. Early Neolithic an-
imal bones from ibrány-nagyerdõ, Hungary. In Koz³owski J.
K. & Raczky P. (eds), Neolithization of the Carpathian Basin:
Norhternmost distribution of the Starèevo/Körös culture.
Kraków–Budapest, 238–254.
Kozlowski J. K. & Raczky P. 2010. Concluding remarks. In
Koz³owski J. K. & Raczky P. (eds), Neolithization of the Car-
pathian Basin: Norhternmost distribution of the Starèevo/
Körös culture. Kraków–Budapest, 249–360.
Paluch T. 2010. Maroslele-Panahát. A Middle Neolithic settle-
ment north of the Maros River. In Koz³owski J. K. & Raczky
P. (eds), Neolithization of the Carpathian Basin: Northern-
most distribution of the Starèevo/Körös culture. Kraków–Bu-
dapest, 283–304.
Pike-Tay A. 2007. Skeletochronological evidence for seasonal
culling of caprines. In Whittle A. (ed.), The Early Neolithic on
the Great Hungarian Plain. Investigations of the Körös cul-
ture site of Ecsegfalva 23, County Békés. (= Varia Archaeo-
logica Hungarica 21). Budapest, 331–342.
Raczky P., Sümegi P., Bartosiewicz L., Gál E., Kaczanowska M.,
Koz³owski J. K. & Anders, A. 2010. Ecological barrier versus
mental marginal zone? Problems of the northernmost Körös
culture settlements in the Great Hungarian Plain. In Gronen-
born D. & Petrasch J. (eds.), Die Neolithisierung Mittel-
europas. The Spread of the Neoltihic to Central Europe. (=
RGZM – Tagungen, Band 4, 1). Mainz, 147–173.
Vörös I. 1980. Zoological and palaeoeconomical investigations on
the archaeozoological material of the Early Neolithic Körös
Culture. Folia Archaeologica 31, 35–61.
Vörös I. 1997. Dévaványa-Barcéi kishalom kora neolitikus álla-
tcsontleletei — Early neolithic animal bone finds from Déva-
ványa-Barcéi kishalom. Communicationes Archaeologicae
Hungariae, 31–37.
Whittle A., Bartosiewicz L., Boriæ D., Pettit P. & Richards M.
2002. In the beginning: new radiocarbon dates for the Early
Neolithic in northern Serbia and south-east Hungary. Antaeus
25, 1–51.
Whittle A., Bartosiewicz L., Boriæ D., Pettitt P. & Richards M.
2005. New radiocarbon dates for the Early Neolithic in north-
ern Serbia and south-east Hungary: some omissions and cor-
rections. Antaeus 28, 347–355.