^{page 123 note 1} ‘25 Jahre Urgeschichtsforschung in Ungarn, 1912–36’, BRGK, 24/25, 1936, S. 61–102Google Scholar.

^{page 123 note 2} ‘Frühbronzezeitliche Kulturen in Ungarn’, Diss. Pann., Ser. II, 13Google Scholar.

^{page 123 note 3} A magyarországi bronzkor kronológiájáról. Kolozsvár, 1943Google Scholar. The results of his more recent explorations were submitted in a lecture in Prague this year, the text of which has not yet been published.

^{page 124 note 1} Only one of these excavations was published a few years after his summary: ‘Die lausitzische Kulture in Komitat Borsod’, FA., I–II, 1939, pp. 31–2Google Scholar. In this short paper he communicated the material of only eight urn-graves.

^{page 124 note 2} A posthumous publication of his literary remains is now under way, including numerous notes, layout maps, drawings of sections and squares as well as MSS from various periods of his life that he had ready for publication.

^{page 124 note 3} Foltiny, István, ‘Das bronzezeitliche Gräberfeld in Szőreg’, DOLG., 1941, pp. 68–88Google Scholar; ‘Bronzezeitliche Funde aus Klárafalva und Kiszombor’, DOLG., 1942, pp. 102–3Google Scholar; ‘Das bronzezeitliche Gräberfeld “Deszk F”’ Publications of the Szeged City Museum, 1942, 11, 3, pp. 25–30Google Scholar; ‘Frühkupferzeitliches und bronzezeitliches Gräberfeld in Deszk’, FA., III–IV, 1941, pp. 88–98Google Scholar.

^{page 124 note 4} See Banner, John, ‘Beigaben der bronzezeitlichen Hockergräber der Maros Gegend’, DOLG., 1931, pp. 46–53Google Scholar.

^{page 124 note 5} ‘Probegrabungen im Tell von Jászdózsa und Umgebung’, A Jászbérényi Jászmuzeum Évkönyve, Yearbook of the Jászmuseum of the town Jászberény), 1938–1943, pp. 306–7Google Scholar.

^{page 124 note 6} ‘Der frühbronzezeitliche Urnenfriedhof von Kisapostag’, AH., Bd., XXVI, 1942Google Scholar.

^{page 124 note 7} ‘Bronzezeitliche Grabfunde aus Sarród’, FA., III–IV, 1941, pp. 65–8Google Scholar.

^{page 124 note 8} See his ‘A Cemetery of the Bronze Age and Traces of a Neolithic Dwelling-Settlement’, AÉ, 1942, pp. 131–43Google Scholar.

^{page 125 note 1} ‘The Urn Cemetery of Szenterzsébet’, BpR., XIV, 1945, pp. 509–13Google Scholar.

^{page 125 note 2} ‘Traditions des steppes à l'âge du Bronze en Hongrie’, AÉ., 1945–1948, pp. 68–74Google Scholar.

Here we may also mention her ‘Mors en bois de cerf sur le territoire du Bassin des Carpathes’, AAA., 1953, pp. 69–109, and Alexander Bökönyi's paper on the same subject, ‘Reconstruction des mors en bois de cerf et en os’, ibid., pp. 113–21.

^{page 125 note 3} Some idea may be gained of the extent and significance of this emergency work from the experts' reports preserved in the files of the Hungarian National Museum. Suffice it to mention only some instances from among the numerous salvage operations directed by archaeologists in the two years 1952 and 1953: urnfields from Likrócspuszta near Győr; settlement at Koroncó-Ujtelep; urnfield cemetery at Petőháza-Cukorgyár; over a hundred urn-graves from an urnfield at Pannóniadülő, Szentendre; graves with contracted skeletons from Szentendre-Vasútállomás; more recently, urn-graves from Sztálinváros (see further down); a grave with a contracted skeleton from Egyek; urn-graves from the Bódi Farm near Katymár; cremation graves with lime-inlaid urns from Szalkszentmárton; settlements from the Malomoldal and Tarisznyáspart at Buják; a settlement from Csécse-Bélahalom (see AÉ., 1954, pp. 70–5); cremation graves from Balatonalmádi-Káp-talanfüred; an urnfield from Soroksár Street, Budapest xx; graves with lime-inlaid urns from Papkeszi; groups of graves from the Kulcs Kömi Farm near Ráczalmás (see further down); urnfield and graves with contracted skeletons from the Pannónia Telep at Szentendre; graves and a settlement from Táborállás at Sztálinváros; an urnfield from Nyulas in Debrecen; a burial ground with scattered ashes from Kápolnahalom at Jászdózsa; an urnfield from the Milkó Farm at Dunavecse-Homokszentlőrinc; a cemetery at Józsa (see AÉ., 1955. pp. 92–6); and many others.

^{page 126 note 1} See DrMarton, Lewis's first report from 1906 published in Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum Jelentése (Reports of the Hungarian National Museum), pp. 170–3Google Scholar.

^{page 126 note 2} Csalog, J., ‘Die Ausgrabungen in Tószeg im Jahre, 1948’, AAA., 1952, pp. 19–32Google Scholar.

^{page 126 note 3} M. Mozsolics, ‘Die Ausgrabungen in Tószeg im Jahre, 1948’, ibid., pp. 35–68.

^{page 126 note 4} S. Bökönyi, ‘Die Wirbeltierfauna der Ausgrabungen in Tószeg im Jahre, 1948’, ibid., pp. 71–112.

^{page 126 note 5} K. A. Reményi, ‘Canidenreste aus den Ausgrabungen bei Tószeg’, ibid., pp. 115–24.

^{page 126 note 6} S. Sárkány–J. Stieber, ‘Anthrokotomische Untersuchung der bei Tózeg ausgegrabenen Holzkohlenreste’, ibid., pp. 125–36.

^{page 126 note 7} M. Ember, ‘Die Textilabdrücke auf den Tószeger Gefässen aus der Bronzezeit’, ibid., pp. 139–42.

^{page 126 note 8} Lewis Márton himself assumed only three subsequent settlements in the earlier phases of his researches, but he failed to give distinctive names to these cultures. In the MSS containing his final views, he himself already spoke of four cultures.

^{page 126 note 9} See Mozsolics, op. cit., p. 55. This view was also emphasized at an exhibition arranged by the Hungarian National Museum.

^{page 126 note 10} See J. Csalog, op. cit., p. 25.

^{page 127 note 1} See Tompa, Francis, BRGK., 1934–1935, p. 66Google Scholar.

^{page 127 note 2} See DOLG., 1931, pp. 25–8.

^{page 127 note 3} See DOLG., 1941, p. 71.

^{page 127 note 4} Stephen Bóna, in his graduation discourse, suggested such a possibility. A careful examination of the finds from Pannonia and from the Great Hungarian Plain, may not unlikely yield a final solution to this problem.

^{page 127 note 5} For this information I am obliged to the director of the excavation, John Szabó. He also informed me that a single grave with similar evidence was found at the Szőlőhalom near Szolnok.

^{page 127 note 6} This cemetery was referred to already by Francis Tompa. It seems to have been known for some time by the grave goods that had found their way into the Hungarian National Museum, although no systematic excavation had ever been carried out in the area before 1951. See Tompa, Francis, BRGK., 1934–1935, pp. 79–80Google Scholar. The Dunapentele mentioned in the article is the modern township Sztálinváros.

^{page 127 note 7} Finds from the Danube-Tisza Canal, found at the earlier stages of its construction, seem to confirm this assumption.

^{page 127 note 8} See Mozsolics, AAA., 1952, pp. 63–4.

^{page 128 note 1} See loc. cit., p. 64.

^{page 128 note 2} The cemetery is situated all around on a plateau surrounding the settlement. As some single graves were encountered too, the area of the cemetery must have been about 43 acres in extent, out of which only about 8.5 acres have been dug up. The graves clustered into several groups. Those of the two earlier cultures—Nagyrév and Kisapostag—were lying along the two roads that left the settlement at the north and south ends. Between the cemeteries of these two cultures but nearer to the settlement, were the graves from the Vatya I period and those of a later date. The grave-goods included over seven thousand bronze and other jewels, more than has so far been found all over Hungary from its Bronze Age. The Nagyrév graves contained only a few objects while those of Kisapostag were strikingly rich; their numbers were still considerable from the Vatya I period whereas finds from the Vatya II period were scanty but beautifully executed. The life of the settlement came to an end with the Vatya II period and with it material that could be assigned to this stage by distinctive grave-goods, which incidentally also showed influences from the Füzesabony culture. These excavations took place in the years 1950–51. Excavations on a smaller scale have been carried on ever since at Kosziderpadlás almost without a break. With the help of this cemetery we may now proceed to establish accurately the chronology of the metal objects from the end of the Hungarian Bronze Age. The information contained in this footnote I owe to cand. archeol. Stephen Bóna.

^{page 128 note 3} This blending of elements of a different provenience, also prevailed at the Várdomb near Békés as will be seen later in this study.

^{page 128 note 4} Excavation by Stephen Bóna in 1954. For this information I am indebted to Bóna who kindly consented to my using the syllabus of his graduation lecture for the degree of a candidate of archaeology.

^{page 128 note 5} Two groups had been destroyed before the excavation commenced.

^{page 129 note 1} This view was put forward by Miss Amelia Mozsolics in an account of her scientific tour to Czechoslovakia. The account was submitted to the Council for Archaeology of the Hungarian Academy in 1955. Farkasgyepü was excavated as far back as 1948 by László Nagy.

^{page 129 note 2} The excavation was carried out in July, 1951, and was conducted by the author.

^{page 129 note 3} See Patay, Paul, ‘Preliminary Report on the Result of Excavations at Nagybátony Cemetery’, AE, 1954., pp. 47–9Google Scholar.

^{page 129 note 4} Eisner, Jan, Slovensko v praveku, 1933, p. 237Google Scholar.

^{page 129 note 5} See Fülep, F., ‘The Five-year Plan of Hungarian Archaeology’, AAA., 1951, p. 12Google Scholar.

^{page 129 note 6} In all the four seasons the work was directed by the author in person.

^{page 130 note 1} The map was the work of László Bede, Chief Engineer of the town Gyula. The plans are made by Elisabeth Fries.

^{page 130 note 2} See the detailed description of the Gyulavarsánd settlement and a list of the more important settlements of a similar kind in Roska, M.'s ‘La stratigraphie de la colline “Laposhalom” de Gyulavarsánd. Abrégé’, FA., III–IV, 1941, pp. 56–61Google Scholar.

^{page 131 note 1} The country round the Várdomb has an average height of between 83–87 m. above sea level.

^{page 131 note 2} The objects in the collection had been known for exactly half a century when we commenced work in 1950.

^{page 131 note 3} The first trial-trench was 13.50 m. longer than the second since by lengthening it we wished to prove or disprove the presence of a palisade. No noteworthy objects were found at both ends of the prolonged trench.

^{page 133 note 1} Later on I shall have to return and correlate all the measurements of the structures conjectured. The holes suggested slender poles rather than substantial posts or stakes. The poles can have served a number of purposes. They can have been parts of timber structures, but they might just as well have been pegs driven into the ground for tethering domestic animals to, particularly those poles that showed no traces of coruscation. When the poles do not reasonably fit into the picture of any structure, either in- or outside the horizontal log-walls, then they can also have been legs of seats, stools or even of tables.

^{page 133 note 2} See BRKG., 1934–5, p. 85, pl. 37, no. 2.

^{page 133 note 3} Digging this summer (1955) was stopped in the middle of August. At the present moment (Sept., 1955), it is too early to review the year's work at any detail. I only wish to state that the results of the previous two seasons, have been confirmed on every point both from the material found at the fort and from the finds from the settlement itself on the north and south.

^{page 133 note 4} The eastern end of this section joins up with the section of the northern profile cut in 1955, but this latter has been badly disturbed.

^{page 136 note 1} It is not unlikely, on the other hand, that the top layers never contained such objects at all. It can easily be imagined that the latter settlers settled on the ruins and did not care for the protection offered by the water-fort. Since the area has been disturbed at many points, judgment on this issue must be suspended.

^{page 136 note 2} Though the fox-holes had considerably obliterated it, the connection between the parts was quite clear-This flooring was larger in surface measurements than the one from the second trial-trench of 200 × 140 cm. respectively 100 × 80 cm. They both must have served the same purpose, and, as was already suggested, might originally have been parts of one and the same structure. The flooring from the second trench was lying nearly 30 cm. deeper, and so its depth corresponded to the lowest level here recorded. The two floors were probably in use over the same time. At the time of finding the flooring of the second trench, we had not as yet visualised what purpose it might have served.

^{page 136 note 3} In Dr Lewis Márton's notes and drawings we often come across references to boards, but never of continuous timber floorings. A similar flooring was mentioned by Joseph Csalog in his report on the recent Tószeg excavations (AAA., 1952, p. 26, fig. 3), though he mentioned only a part of a flooring that, according to his drawing, consisted of seven boards covering an area of 130 × 110 cm. Similar remains were also found at the settlement of Kosziderpadlás. This information I owe to the courtesy of Miss Amelia Mozsolics. At Barca near Kosice, Slovakia, houses with similar structures were found, but the literature dealing with these was not available. The reconstruction of a dwelling-place from Barca by Varga, László (AÉ., 1954, pp. 48–56)Google Scholar, does not tally with the other structures from Barca according to Miss A. Mozsolics.

^{page 138 note 1} Many European villages of our own days contain similar or even greater differences in ground-level, particularly in places where the débris of buildings broken down by floods is being repeatedly used for filing up the building sites. Numerous instances can be found from the environs and even the interior, of the village Békés near which the fort is situated.

^{page 138 note 2} Fragments of floorings that could similarly be pieced together, were found in several layers during 1955.

^{page 139 note 1} In 1955 the charred parts of another beam were found somewhat further off. But as this stump did not resist the pressure of the earth so well as the former, it broke into splinters of charcoal on being uncovered. Its connection with the former charred stump of a beam, seemed uncertain, and I would rather not press it.

^{page 139 note 2} The same suggestion was put forward by Roska, M., FA., III–IV, 1941, p. 46Google Scholar.

^{page 139 note 3} The majority of the pole-holes did not exceed 7 cm. in width, and a good number of them were under 5 cm. Those wider than 5 cm., were 56 in number. Out of the latter only 15 holes were wider than 10 cm., but none of these could have belonged to one and the same structure. Taking all in all, none of the holes in this square came anywhere near a width of 15–25 cm., a width that would be necessary for a permanent timber structure of sound construction.

^{page 139 note 4} See J. Csalog, AAA., 1952, p. 28, figs. 4–5.

^{page 139 note 5} See Tompa, Francis, BRGK., 1934–1935, p. 85, fig. 6Google Scholar.

^{page 139 note 6} See Márton, L., Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum Jelentése (Report of the Hungarian National Museum). Budapest, 1913, p. 194, fig. 28Google Scholar.

^{page 139 note 7} The excavations in 1955 have not offered any new information on this point except that in one of the squares, 3 × 2 m. a great number of mud flakes that always go with building were found, yet no imprints of timber have been discovered. Such evidence is hardly sufficient for far-reaching conclusions.

^{page 140 note 1} In 1955 the sites lying outside the fort gave up a material that substantially revealed the same order in the process of settlement as did the sites within the Fort Hill. The layers themselves were somewhat thinner in die settlement, but otherwise the distribution of the objects over the various layers and the presence of the ceramics in the lowest, middle and topmost layers, showed much the same features in both areas.

^{page 140 note 2} See Foltiny, , DOLG., 1941, pl. xrv, no. 29 et seqGoogle Scholar.

^{page 140 note 3} See Roska, M., DOLG., 1912, p. 27, fig. 45Google Scholar.

^{page 140 note 4} This assumption was proved by a similar smaller vessel that, in fact, was found in a higher level.

^{page 140 note 5} See Roska, M., FA., III–IV, 1941, pp. 47–50Google Scholar.

^{page 140 note 6} I had access to the unpublished MS relating to this site, through the kindness of Dr Martin Roska.

^{page 141 note 1} At Szőreg, among others, such have been found in graves nos. 67, 93 and 226, etc. (See Foltiny, , DOLG., 1941, pl. viii, no. 7Google Scholar; pl. x, no. 6; pl. xviii, no. 13), and at Perjámos in groups III and II (see Roska, M., Muzeumi és Könyvtári Értesitö, 1913Google Scholar, fig. 16 and 1914, fig. 15).

^{page 141 note 2} See Roska, M., DOLG., 1912, p. 25, fig. 43Google Scholar.

^{page 141 note 3} See Foltiny, , DOLG., 1941, p. 63Google Scholar., pl. xvi, no. 21, and pl. xviii, no. 20.

^{page 141 note 4} See Hampel, J., Trouvailles de l'âge de Bronze en Hongrie. Budapest, 1886. pl. lxxii–lxxiiiGoogle Scholar.

^{page 141 note 5} See Foltiny, , DOLG., 1941, p. 63, pl. xiv, no. 7Google Scholar. Also Milleker, , Arch. Közl., vol. xx, p. 57, pl. iii, no. 12Google Scholar.

^{page 141 note 6} See Roska, M., FA., III–IV, 1941, p. 14, fig. 5Google Scholar.

^{page 141 note 7} See Dorin Popescu, Die frühe und mittlere Bronzezeit in Siebenbürgen, figs. 42, 4 and 43, 5.

^{page 141 note 8} See among others Foltiny, op. cit., pl. xi, 8; pl. xii, 14; pl. xiv, 23, etc.

^{page 141 note 9} See Dorin Popescu, op. cit., fig. 42, 1.

^{page 141 note 10} See M. Roska, op. cit., p. 48, fig. 5, and judging by the drawings probably also p. 49, 7 and 4–5; p. 51, 14, 4. After his trial excavation, Dr Roska thought it not unlikely that the two layers might eventually be clearly separated (op. cit., p. 46).

^{page 142 note 1} Such pottery was excavated in 195s outside the precincts of the fort, and even in 1954 at a distance of over 1 km. from it.

^{page 142 note 2} See Foltiny, op. cit., pl. XIII, 20, 21, 27 and pl. XIV, 25–9.

^{page 142 note 3} Remains of a dugout canoe were found by Dr Tompa, and by Dr Márton in Tószeg, according to an unpublished paper by the latter and to a drawing in it. The dugout itself was wrongly treated in preparation and has since been lost.

^{page 142 note 4} Beside the idols from Vinča and from the Balkans, it will be sufficient to adduce the fragment from Csóka unearthed by Francis Móra, the Venus from Kökénydomb (see Banner, J., Délvidéki Szemle, 1942, pp. 458–63Google Scholar), and the stool from Paradicsompuszta (Csalog, , DOLG., 1943, pp. 133 f.Google Scholar, pl. xlix). See also Hoerness-Menghin, , Urgeschichte der bildenden Kunst in Europa. Wien, 1925, p. 319, and esp. fig. 4, which shows a chair with a backGoogle Scholar.