Alba Regia. Annales Musei Stephani Regis. – Alba Regia. Az István Király Múzeum Évkönyve. 8.-9. 1967-1968 – Szent István Király Múzeum közleményei: C sorozat (1968)

Tanulmányok – Abhandlungen - Bándi Gábor: Remarks on the History of Research in the „Vueedol Problem”. – Megjegyzések a Vueedoli-kérdés kutatástörténetéhez. VIII–IX, 1967–68. p. 23–33.

and the Slovenian regions, down to the sea in the SW, are also comprised.

38 The material of the northernmost territories of the culture has been summed up by Czech and Slovak research.

39 It was B. Novotny who, utilizing all the sites and minor publications,

40 dealt with the Bohemian, Moravian and Slovakian extension of the Slavonic culture, as he put it.

41 The author was fully aware of the fact that the culture may have infiltrated in this area, north of the Danube, from the south ; thus he established a connection between the material of Slovakia and the Moravian Basin (22+6 sites) on one hand and the groups of the culture in Hungary on the other. As to the Bohemian sites, comprising 15 groups of well defined, closed items, he propounded their Austrian origin, since they lacked a connection towards the Moravian and Slovakian territories.

42 As regards chronology, he represented a relatively well established view equally, dating the start of the Early Bronze Age in Slovakia and Moravia by the appearance of this population. In the former area the folk of the new culture used Baden material, in the latter the Jesovice-A horizon, as can be proved stratigraphically.

43 In Bohemia the culture has settled in the Late Neolithic highland sites, contemporaneously with the people of the Bell Beakers, equally newcomers from Austria.

44 This view, unitary both as to the origins and chronology, did not find unanimous approval with Slovak research. In the works by A. Tocik and J. P a u 1 i k

45 a quite different idea has been expressed as to the problem of the "Slavonic culture" in Slovakia. Using essentially identical material with that of A. Novotny, both scholars came to the conclusion that the Slavonic culture or, as they put it according to earlier Hungarian terminology, the "Vucedol

—Zók culture", was never settled in the mentioned area as an independent unit, but its material belonged to the so-called Caka type of the Nagyrév culture.

46 According to their chronological scale, the "Vucedol

—Zók culture" is still an Aeneolithic one and the local group of the Nagyrév culture means the beginning of the Bronze Age in Slovakia.

47 As regards the identification of this horizon with Reinecke BA l,

48 Hungarian material bears out the inference that in the course of the Bronze Age Slovakia was an organic part of the regions situated more to the south in the Carpathian Basin, so these Early Bronze Age cultures of southern derivation cannot be dated with the help of the Reinecke chronology. Almost the entire existences of both the so-called Vucedol

—Zók and the Nagyrév cultures were prior to the period Reinecke BA and they may be enlisted into the Early Bronze Age of South-Eastern Europe (Central Helladic I, Central Thracian Middle Bronze 38 Ibid. - Cf. the material of note 34. за J. ONDRACEK: AR 17 (1965) 770. - I. PLEINEROVÁ: Kommission für das Aeneolithikum und ältere Bronzezeit Nitra 1958 (Bratislava 1961) 111.; M. BUCHWALDEK: AR 7 (1955) 218. 40 M. SOLLE: AR 6 (1954) 753 -.; J. BÖHM: Krónika objeveného véku (Praha 1941) 190.; A. BENESOVA: AR 6 (1954) 148 -.; V. J. FEWKES: PAPS 71 (1932) 357-392. « B. NOVOTNY: op. cit. «a Ibid. 56. 43 Ibid. 57. « Ibid. « A. TOCIK - J. PAULIK: SA 8 (1960) 59. A. TOCIK: Kommission für das Aeneolithikum ... 29. 4в Ibid. 47 Ibid. 110. 48 Cf. the material of note 45. Age).

49 The studies of J. Via dar on this subject seem to approach the earlier, in our judgment basically right solution of Novotny and the most recent Hungarian theories.

50 Since the papers by K. Willvonseder

51 the stand of the Austrian scholarship remained essentially unchanged, except for the dissenting views of R. P i 11 io n i.

52 In part this is due to the fact that their area was touched by this great culture but peripherally. Apart from the Mondsee group*

53 they use the term "Vucedol

— Laibach" for this type of finds, having arrived to the area of Stiria, Carinthia and East Tyrol from the South in all probability; Burgenland, housing a Bell Beaker group at this time, being an exception.

54 Chronologically they date the horizon between Baden and the Corded Ware Pottery; they regard it a contemporary of the mentioned Bell Beaker group and the Nagyrév culture in Hungary.

55 In Yougoslavian research the term used for the culture and its content are unitary on the whole, though the Slovenian scholars, as P. Korosec and J. Koros e с adopt the name "Slavonic culture",

56 whereas in the Croatian and Serbian literature the term "Vucedol culture" has found general application ( M. Garasan i n, K. V i n s к i, А. В e n а с, S. D i m i t r i ev i с ).

57 As to origins, almost all students agree on the tenet that the Vucedol or Slavonic culture was a product of the aboriginal local population mainly (traditions of Baden

—Kostolac, Babska

—Lengyel), and it radiated from Croato

—Slavonian territory to the West Hungarian, Austrian and Slovak

—Moravian

—Czech regions.

58 Nor did M. Garasanin look for the eventual components of the culture in the South or in the Lower Danube region, in fact he set the limit of the SE extension of the Vucedol orbit at the Danube

—Drine line categorically.

59 As regards the diffusion of the culture, А. В e n а с makes a clear division between the material in West and Central Bosnia and that in Dalmatia and Hercegovina, found partly in the valley of the Sana river, partly near Sarajevo in Hercegovina, finally in the Cetina valley and on the isles of the Dalmatian shore. He also joins the view that the culture has expanded from NW to SE, not even contemplating the possibility of southern factors in its origins.

60 The culture was given its most thorough treatment and analysis in the papers by S. Dimitrievi é.

61 1. The first basic feature of his work is the fact that he has dealt with the Vucedol culture, as he put it, in the relation of Yougoslavia only. 49 I. BONA: Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve (Annals о the Ferenc Móra Museum) (1964-65) 25-30.; ID.: Alba Regia 4/5(1963/64) 61.; AUSB 3 (1961) 5. so J. VLADAR: SA 10 (1962) 319; SA 12 (1964) 357. si K. WILLVONSEDER: op. cit. 21.; К. WILLVONSEDER: Die mittlere Bronzezeit in Österreich (Lepizig-Wien 1937).; K. WILLVONSEDER: WPZ26(1939) 135. 52 R. PITTIONI: op. cit. 234.; 53 Cf. note 16. R. PITTIONI: op. cit. 210. 54 A. OHRENBERGER: BHb 12 (1950) 1. 55 Ibid. 56 Cf. the material of note 34. - P. KOROSEC: Arh.West. 8 (1957) 9 -. P. KOROSEC: Acta et Diss. Archaeologicae 2 (1962) 213 -. J. KOROSEC: Glasnik 1 (1946); 57 A. BENAC: op. cit. 135 -; S. DIMITRIEVIC: Opusc. Arch. 1 (1956) 5 - ; Opusc. Arch. 5 (1961) 59 - ; M. GARASANIN: BRGK 39 (1958) 45 - ; N. TASIC: Starinar 11 (1960) 143 -. 58 Ibid. s« M. GARASANIN: op. cit. 45. «о A. BENAC: op. cit. 142. 61 S. DIMITRIEVIC: op. cit. 25