Folia archeologica 1-2.

Banner János: Bádeni sírok hódmezővásárhelyen, a Bodzásparton

23 BANNER: GRAVES OF THE «BADEN» CULTURE AT HÓDMEZŐVÁSÁRHELY selves, 300 m and 100 m respectively distant from each other the material of both elements were abundantly represented. Still the thought arises, that the three graves are not absolutely contemporary. Grave 2 seems to be earlier than graves 1 and 3. If this fact is proved, then we have to speak about two periods in this culture too; an earlier period, being under entirely foreign influence and a later one enlarged by native elements. Naturally this question can only be solved if on the one hand there will be this separation in further gravegoods, and on the other hand if we can stratigraphically divide on the settlement these two groups which seems to follow each other. This presumption is also supported by the fact that Szeged. 1 Dolg. 1935, XI, pp. 126—35; in German pp. 136—144; pis. XXIII—XXV, pl. XXII, figs. 14, 16, 17, 18, 21. 2 Ibid. 1937, p. 50. 3 Briefly mentioned: Arch. Ért. 1937, pp. 160—161. 4 Arch. Ért. 1899, pp. 63—64. (On the basis of our finds we doubt the correctness of this observation.) 5 Stocky, LA BOHÉMÉ PRÉHISTORIQUE. PL LXXXVI, figs. 8, 10, 16. — Pittioni, URGESCHICHTE. PL 14, 23. 6 See: Willvonseder, ZWEI GRABFUNDE DER BADNER-KULTUR AUS NIEDERÖSTERREICH. W. P. Z. 1937, 14—28. — Schranil, DIE VORGESCHICHTE BÖHMENS UND MÄHRENS. Pl. XII, figs. 13, 22. — Stocky, OP. CIT. Pl. XCI, fig. 5, Pl. XCIV, figs. 1, 2, Pl. XCVIII, figs. 1—7. — Pittioni, OP. CIT. Pl. 14, 23. — Mitscha—Merheim—

Pittioni, ZUR BESIEDELUNGSGESCHICHTE DES UNTEREN GRANTALES. M. A. G. Wien, 1934, PL III, fig. 2—3. — Eisner, SLOVENSKO V PRAVEKU. Pl. XVII, figs. 3, 6, 7. — Bayer, DIE OSSARNER KULTUR. EISZEIT UND URGESCHICHTE. 1928, Pl. XX, and p. 89. — Cziráky, A BOGOJEVAI ŐSTELEPRŐL (The prehistoric settlement of Bogojeva). Arch. Ért. 1896, p. 20, fig. 1—3. — Milekker, A SZERBKERESZTURI ŐSTELEP (The prehistoric settlement of Szerbkeresztur. Arch. Ért. p. 307, fig. 33. 7 See: Eisner, OP. CIT. Pl. XVII, figs. 8 a—b. — around grave 2 we scarcely found any aeneolithic sherds, while in the neighbourhood 1

3 of graves 1 and 3 we found them present everywhere. Even in some pits this material was exclusively represented, also in a regular grave too — which was buried in a pit of refuse. Tompa

1

4 against Schranil

1

5 came to the conculsion that the native soil for this culture could not be Hungary. Such a definite isolation of the two elements also proves this determination. But we may add that this culture coming to us from abroad was enriched here by many factors, a part of which is only to be found in Hungary, and which therefore gives a peculiar appearance to the culture which can not be found elsewhere.

1

6 János Banner Mitsche—

Merheim—Pittioni, OP. CIT. Pl. Ill, figs. 10—12. — Bayer, OP. CIT. Pl. XVII, figs. 2, 3, 6. 8 See note 6. 9 Zotz, NEUE STEINZEITLICHE KULTURBEZIEHUNGEN IN MITTELSCHLESIEN. Altschlesien. 1936 pp. 56—59. 1

0 See: Tompa, 25 JAHRE URGESHICHTSFORSCHUNG IN UNGARN. Bericht. 1934—35, PL 17, figs. 7, 8, 2, 13. — Bálint—Párducz, UJABB ŐSKORI TELEP ÓSZENTIVÁN HATÁRÁBAN (Recently discovered prehistoric settlement on the boundary of Ószentiván). Dolg. 1934, Pl. X, fig. 23. 11 K. Szabó: KECSKEMÉTI MÜZEUM ÁSATÁSAI I. KISRÉTI PART (The excavations of the museum of Kecskemét. I. The rising ground of Kisrét). Arch. Ért. 1934, pp. 10—39. 1

2 Banner, A BADENI KULTÚRA EMLÉKEI HÓDMEZŐVÁSÁRHELYEN (The relics of the «Baden» culture at Hódmezővásárhely). Dolg. 1935, pp. 128— 129. — The mixed material of the recently disclosed settlement also serves as a good example. 1

3 Dolg. 1934, Pl. XII, figs. 10—12; Pl. XXV, figs. 14—20, 26. 14 OP. CIT. p. 48. 15 OP. CIT. p. 59. i® We shall deal with these and with the chronological position of the culture more in detail in the course of the description of the material of the whole settlement.