Between Worlds. The Enclosed Settlement of the Münchshöfen Culture at Riedling (Lower Bavaria)

Full text

E-JOURNAL • 2020 SPRING
HUNGARIAN
ARCHAEOLOGY
www.hungarianarchaeology.hu
BETWEEN WORLDS
The Enclosed Settlement of the Münchshöfen Culture at Riedling (Lower Bavaria)
Márton Szilágyi – ludwig HuSty – daniela HofMann
Hungarian Archaeology Vol. 9 (2020), Issue 1, pp. 12–20, https://doi.org/10.36338/ha.2020.1.5
Our study presents a Late Neolithic enclosed settlement from Lower Bavaria. This site arouses interest not
only regionally but also on a Central European level, as several phenomena emerged during this period
along the Danube in Lower Bavaria that are strongly linked to the Carpathian Basin and other parts of
Central Europe. In our present report, we focus on one phenomenon of the many at Riedling, the so-called
structured deposits. These nd assemblages are probably results of intentional selection of the material
culture deposited deliberately, perhaps related to single ritual events.
CHRONOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL SETTING – THE SECOND HALF
OF THE 5TH MILLENNIUM BC
Across Central and North-Western Europe, the Late Neolithic introduces fundamental changes in material
culture and human behaviour. In addition, there is an expansion of the Neolithic way of life across the north
European plain, into Great Britain and Ireland, and across the foothills of the Alps. A secondary expansion
is also visible in regions that had been settled long before, where now less favourable soils were exploited
(e. g. Gleser 1995, 331–335; lichardus 1991).
Perhaps the biggest observable change in terms of material culture is the regional fragmentation in
pottery styles. After the period of the culturally rather homogeneous LBK-complex (Linearbandkeramik,
Linear Pottery culture), several cultural units emerged in this area that were distinguished mostly based on
pottery, including the Rössen Group in southwestern Germany and in the Rhineland, the SBK (Stichband-
keramik, Stroked Pottery) in the north and northeast of the region (southern Germany, Czech Republic,
southwestern Poland), and the Lengyel complex in the east (Moravia, Lower and Upper Austria, and the
western Carpathian Basin) (e.g. hofmann & Gleser 2019).
In the second half of the 5th millennium cal BC, this cultural prole becomes even more fragmented, as
does terminology. This period is assigned to the Late Neolithic in Germany, whereas it is called the Early
Copper Age or Aeneolithic in the Carpathian Basin and adjacent areas. The appearance of the Epi-Rössen
Groups (Aichbühl, Bischheim, Schussenried, Schwieberdingen, etc.; more recently the so-called ‛Schulter-
bandgruppen’) in the west were followed by the Michelsberg culture at the end of the period (Gleser 2016).
The SBK is replaced by Gatersleben in Germany and by Jordanów/Jordansmühl in the Czech Republic and
Poland (hofmann & Gleser 2019, g. 1). In the east, the image becomes pixelated too, with the appearance of
the Lengyel III, Balaton-Lasinja, Sava, Ludanice, Bisamberg-Oberpullendorf and Kazianiberg-Lasinja groups
(Pavúk 2001; sraka 2012, 369–371). Nevertheless, these areas remain connected by a series of long-distance
networks, along which (prestige) objects, such as those made of copper and gold, jade and other stone materi-
als that can be knapped, and new technologies and ideas travelled (klassen 2004; chaPman 2013). Connect-
ing these different scales of social action remains a central issue for archaeologists to investigate.
THE MÜNCHSHÖFEN CULTURE IN BAVARIA
In this brief report, we present one case study, the Bavarian Münchshöfen culture, which illustrates the
complex interplay between local characteristics and a shared world view. While southeastern Bavaria had
been an integral part of the LBK areas, in the rst half of the 5th millennium the region was rather a contact
zone located between the three large cultural blocks mentioned above, leading to a series of contradictory
designations (Biermann 1997, 5–8; eiBl 2011; riedhammer 2016, 128–129). This was followed, from the
5th millennium, by the Münchshöfen culture, a regional grouping centred on the Bavarian Danube valley.

Márton Szilágyi – Ludwig Husty – Daniela Hofmann • Between Worlds
13
HUNGARIAN ARCHAEOLOGY E-JOURNAL • 2020 Spring
Münchshöfen is also dened mainly by its pottery style, characterised by the occurrence of a wide range
of new pottery forms, new decoration techniques and ornamental motifs. It appeared along the Danube and
its southern tributaries (Laber, Isar, Vils) in a fertile plain known as the Gäuboden, and in the Tertiary Hills
area along the river valleys. Outside the core area, sporadic sites along the Lech River, around Salzburg and
Upper Austria are also known (süss 1976, 99–118; meixner 2017, abb 16.). Münchshöfen-type sherds have
also been found further away, such as in Baden-Württemberg, the southern Alps, and the Czech Republic
(ZáPotocky 2016, 25; mottes et al. 2002, 120).
This novel pottery style with its wide range of new pot shapes and decorations is very dissimilar from
the previous period and is the dening characteristic of the Münchshöfen group. Main shapes include shoul-
dered vessels, pots with cylindrical necks, bowls with thickened rims, small conical cups, and S-proled
bowls that often stood on high pedestals (süss 1976, 6–39). Clay spoons or ladles are also common, iden-
tical in shape to those known from across Central Europe (süss 1976, 35).
The decoration of the pots is spectacular, made mostly by using stab-and-drag technique. The motifs are
usually built up from meander patterns that were arranged in panels around the bodies of the pots. These
motifs occur only on certain types of pots, while other types have various plastic ornamentation and notches
on the rim.
Although we know a large number of sites in Bavaria, many are stray nds and small-scale excavations.
Generally speaking, the settlements were small in size, consisting of a few pits, and few traces of houses
or buildings are known so far (Ganslmeier 2009; meixner 2016). Similarly, we do not yet know of any
formal cemeteries, but instead a range of inhumations, partial and secondary burials from various kinds of
sites. In addition, many of the 130 or so individuals known to date cannot be considered regular burials, for
instance those buried in irregular positions in multiple interments (meixner 2009). This is not unusual in
a Late Neolithic context. Similarly, many sites have been discovered that were surrounded by enclosures
or ditch systems, sometimes of substantial extent (hofmann & husty 2019, 945–946), again in line with
broader European trends. Some of these enclosures, but also some settlement sites, see so-called ‘structured
deposits’, i.e. items of material culture thought to be deposited deliberately, perhaps for ritual purposes
(hofmann & husty 2019, 946–948).
There is little agreement on what brought about the development of the Münchshöfen phenomenon. It
seems clear that this is a local group with strong relationships both to the east and the west, which is visible for
example in the pottery style, structured deposits and the construction of enclosures (Gleser 1995, 290–298).
However, this community was not open to all innovations, as neither the boom of copper and gold objects in
the east nor the appearance of Alpine jade in the west had an impact on this area (klassen et al. 2012, 1281).
Our project, generously funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft1, aims to study a single enclo-
sure site with a rich inventory of nds in order to better understand the Münchshöfen culture and its connec-
tions to surrounding areas. Our main aims are to further characterise the network of contacts at the site (both
in terms of objects and of behaviours), and to trace its chronological development. We also want to establish
the role of this enclosure in its regional setting, whether enclosure sites can be said to function within a kind
of settlement hierarchy, and if so, how stable this was. Finally, by drawing the strands together, we will
reect on the position of the Münchshöfen culture in its wider Late Neolithic European context, particu-
larly in relation to narratives of increasing social stratication that are often linked to this period (hofmann,
husty & sZiláGyi 2018, 168–169).
RIEDLING-OBERPIEBING
Our case study is the site of Riedling near Straubing in Lower Bavaria, located on a small rise between
the Gäuboden and the Tertiary Hills (husty & meixner 2009; husty 2011). Excavation between 2007 and
2012 took place prior to clay mining and uncovered two intercutting ditches dated to the Münchshöfen
1 Chronology, networks, society: the Münchshöfen culture at the enclosure site of Riedling, Lower Bavaria. Grant number:
82751946.

Márton Szilágyi – Ludwig Husty – Daniela Hofmann • Between Worlds
14
HUNGARIAN ARCHAEOLOGY E-JOURNAL • 2020 Spring
culture, in addition to a large number of pits mainly
within the enclosures (Fig.1).
The outer ditch is the earlier of the two. It forms
an irregular oval of around 180 m × 110 m, which
is unusually large for the Münchshöfen culture.
The ditch is segmented, but taking into account the
considerable levels of erosion at the site, the circuit
was probably more continuous on the Neolithic
ground surface, with only the larger gaps serving as
entrances. The more recent, sub-rectangular ditch
encloses an area of around 150 m × 160 m. It has not
been completely excavated, but the remainder of its
path has been traced through geophysical surveying.
Overall, 169 Late Neolithic pits were excavated.
Dozens more probably belonged to the same period,
but they did not contain reliably datable nds.
The amount of nds – just like the size of the
enclosure – is outstanding compared to other sites.
The number of ceramic fragments is close to 45,000
and there are also thousands of animal bone nds.
The weight of daub and burnt clay exceeds 180 kg,
and there are several hundred chipped and polished
stone tools, as well as a variety of bone and tex-
tile production implements. Based on the ceramic
material and the preliminary absolute dates, the site
belongs to the classical and late Münchshöfen sty-
listic phases, and was in use between approximately
4400–4000 cal BC.
Due to the complexity of the site, and the quan-
tity and signicance of the nds, it stands out from
other known Münchshöfen complexes. While a
more comprehensive interpretation is still in pro-
gress, in this publication we intend to present only one aspect in more detail, the structured deposits at
Riedling and the role of pottery in them.
STRUCTURED DEPOSITS IN RIEDLING
Riedling has revealed a large number of special assemblages, dened on the basis of the quantity, com-
pleteness and composition of the material. Although the denitional boundaries of any category such as
‘special’ deposit must remain fuzzy, 25–30 pit assemblages have been provisionally identied as unusual.
These were mostly recovered in segments of the older earthwork and some of the pits, and each assemblage
appears to have been deposited over a very short period of time. They usually consisted of large amounts of
fragmented pottery, animal bones, and in many cases human remains. In what follows, we will present four
examples of structured deposits found in Riedling. They have been chosen to illustrate the diversity within
this category, especially the variability of their nd assemblages.
Human remains and large quantities of pottery in ditch segment 26
Feature 26 is located on the west side of the earlier enclosure, near its southwest corner. The segment is 4.2 m
long, 1.4–1.7 m wide and only 40 cm deep. In the northern half of the oblong ditch segment, a human skeleton
Fig. 1. The location of Riedling in southeastern Bavaria
(above). Map of the Late Neolithic settlement (below). The
segments of the earlier enclosure are coloured in light grey,
the segments of the more recent enclosure are in dark grey,
and features mentioned in the text are marked with red dots

Márton Szilágyi – Ludwig Husty – Daniela Hofmann • Between Worlds
15
HUNGARIAN ARCHAEOLOGY E-JOURNAL • 2020 Spring
was found beneath a thick layer of fragmented
pottery (Fig. 2 A). Charcoal and a small amount
of daub were also deposited. The total weight of
the pottery was more than 71 kg, and the total
amount of sherds ran to 1,773 pieces belonging
to a maximum of 1152 vessels. In practice, this
means that a relatively large number of cohesive
fragments have been deposited here, proportion-
ally more than the site average. Therefore, the
pottery deposited here was in a less fragmented
state than in most other features. However, the
proportion of diagnostic sherds is lower than one
would expect under these circumstances, mostly
because the assemblage contains many large
base and side fragments of otherwise undiagnos-
tic pots. Among the identiable pots are classic
Münchshöfen forms (Fig. 2 B/6–9), but also rar-
ities otherwise not found on the site or only spo-
radically. These include a small, shouldered tum-
bler, a bell-shaped pedestal and a short-necked
spherical bowl (Fig. 2 B/3–5). It is also impor-
tant to mention two miniature vessels, which are
unusual in the site assemblage (Fig. 2 B/1–2).
Broken vessels in ditch segment 110
Feature 110 is a short ditch segment, 2.5 m long, 0.9 m wide and only 20 cm deep. It is located at the south
side of the earlier enclosure, near its southwest corner. An intact layer at the base of the feature contained
a large amount of pottery, a few animal bones and daub (Fig. 3 A). The total amount of sherds ran to 901
fragments that belonged to a maximum of 454 pots. The total weight reached nearly 27 kg. As in the previ-
ous example, the degree of fragmentation was lower than the average at the site, and the photographs show
the large pieces of vessels at the base of the ditch.
The form and decoration of the vessels t well into the classic Münchshöfen pottery style, with shoul-
dered vessels, pots with cylindrical necks and bowls with thickened rims (Fig. 3 B/4–6). Some rare types
were also found, such as a short-necked, semi-spherical bowl, a spherical jar with a narrowing neck, and a
Fig. 2. A.: steps of uncovering ditch segment 26
(photograph: ArcTron);
B.: compilation of the pottery material from ditch segment 26
Fig. 3. A.: ditch segment 110 (photograph: ArcTron); B.: compilation of the pottery material from ditch segment 110

Márton Szilágyi – Ludwig Husty – Daniela Hofmann • Between Worlds
16
HUNGARIAN ARCHAEOLOGY E-JOURNAL • 2020 Spring
bowl with handles (Fig. 3 B/1–3). Further fragments of the latter were found in a similar assemblage in the
neighbouring ditch segment No. 109.
Human skulls and broken ne wares in pit 675
Feature 675 is a rounded pit with
straight sides and a at base, and
is a part of a relatively small pit
complex. Its diameter is 2.8–3 m,
its depth is 1.3 m, making it larger
than most other rounded pits at
the site. A thin layer of charcoal
was found at the base of the pit, on
top of which was a large quantity
of pottery and daub, three human
skulls and other human bones,
animal bones, a perforated bone
tool and other nds (Fig. 4 A).
The total number of sherds was
1280, belonging to a maximum of
1219 pots. The total weight of the
pottery was as much as 25 kg.
A characteristic of the pottery
assemblage recovered here was
its high degree of fragmentation.
The material consisted of mostly
small fragments, so that relatively
few types could be identied. The proportion of decorated fragments was unusually high, almost 10% of all
fragments were decorated with stab-and-drag motifs (Fig. 4 B). Large quantities of daub were also found;
the total weight of the 381 fragments exceeded 13.5 kg. Interestingly, one third of this material showed
architectural imprints, again an unusually high number.
Grinding stones, potsherds and traces of re in pit 801
Feature 801 is an irregularly shaped, rounded pit in the southeastern part of the site, a few meters from the
inside edge of the earlier ditch. The pit has a diameter of 1.3 m, which is larger than similar pits. At 1.6
Fig. 4. A.: steps of uncovering pit 675 (photograph: ArcTron); B.: compilation of
the pottery material from pit 675
Fig. 5. A.: pit 801 (photograph: ArcTron); B.: compilation of the pottery material from pit 801

Márton Szilágyi – Ludwig Husty – Daniela Hofmann • Between Worlds
17
HUNGARIAN ARCHAEOLOGY E-JOURNAL • 2020 Spring
m, its depth differs signicantly from the average of 0.3–0.6 m for similar features. A nd concentration
right at the base of the pit consisted of pottery, burnt earth, a few animal bones and daub, and fragments of
grinding stones (Fig. 5 A). The amount of pottery (240 fragments from 193 vessels at most, total weight 5.8
kg) is not very large, but still far exceeds the quantities usually found in similar pits. Among the identia-
ble pots are classic Münchshöfen forms, with shouldered vessels, pots with cylindrical necks, bowls with
thickened rims and bowls with an S-shaped prole (Fig. 5 B). The assemblage also contained a relatively
large proportion of ne wares. The amount of animal bones and daub is low or average, but the number of
grinding stones is very high.
IS THERE ANY ORDER? PATTERNS IN STRUCTURED DEPOSITION
The examples presented here clearly show the duality that characterises structured deposits. On the one
hand, there is a high degree of similarity of form. These assemblages were placed in the ground during a
single event or over a very short time, as indicated by a compact layer or nds at the base or within the
bottom third of the features. This suggests that the act of deposition was a single, conscious event. The
selection of the locations might also have been deliberate, with most of the examples recorded in segments
of the older ditch or in rounded, deep pits. It is also clear that the number of nds is much larger than for
average settlement features. In all the cases cited here, pottery is a central element in the rituals. There also
seems to be a deliberate selection of objects, which is indicated by rarer pottery forms and the fact that
composition patterns differ from the average of all assemblages. Some of the pottery forms and decorations
became generally used in the later phases of the settlement, thus the appearance of these objects can be seen
as presenting novelties in a special context. However, some of the innovations dated to this period do not
occur either elsewhere at Riedling or at other sites of the Münchshöfen culture.
On the other hand, there are also clear differences. The composition of the assemblages can vary consid-
erably in terms of both type and condition of the nds. Human remains do not appear in all assemblages,
and the range and quantity of animal bones, daub and stone artefacts show tremendous variety. Similarly,
the precise characteristics of the pottery are highly variable. Rare shapes are common, the proportion of
ne, decorated ceramics is many times higher than in average pits, and the level of fragmentation often
suggests vessels in better condition. However, these principles cannot be considered exclusive, and are not
always valid. The precise categories of vessels differed, sometimes placing more stress on exotic or care-
fully produced forms, and sometimes on sheer mass. In addition, some vessels were deposited almost com-
plete and/or smashed in situ, while in other cases it seemed important to have as many different containers
as possible represented, even if in small quantities.
CONCLUSIONS AND OUTLOOK
In this short study, we have highlighted some examples of a typical phenomenon of the site at Riedling,
namely structured deposits. Overall, and even on the basis of such a small, preliminary selection, it is clear
that structured deposits were an important arena for the consumption of wealth and innovation in ritual dis-
play. The role of pottery is central in this endeavour. Vast quantities of carefully produced and extensively
decorated vessels were destroyed at such events, alongside rare and exotic forms and a huge number of
more mundane containers for storage and food preparation. It is likely that in addition to any long-decayed
organic vessels, we are also missing the former contents of these objects, food and drink for human con-
sumption. Together, these represent an important part of this society’s surplus production. It is possible that
presenting food and drink to large gatherings of people in appropriately chosen containers was a socially
valued activity that could have played a similar role as the deposits of prestige items such as metalwork in
other contemporary cultures.
In this very short essay, we could only present a preliminary snapshot of our material. However, the
issue will be further investigated, for example by testing the pots for their former contents and by further
detailed comparison of the inventories of each deposit. We also hope to further contextualise the tradition of

Márton Szilágyi – Ludwig Husty – Daniela Hofmann • Between Worlds
18
HUNGARIAN ARCHAEOLOGY E-JOURNAL • 2020 Spring
structured deposits as a whole. The Münchshöfen phenomenon has strong eastern connections, with many
characteristics linking it to eastern Central Europe, including the western Carpathian Basin. This system
of contacts has recently been referred to as the “Late Lengyel Interaction Zone”. The westernmost section
of this is southeastern Bavaria and the easternmost is the Carpathian Basin (cZerniak & PyZel 2016, 111;
Jeunesse 2019, 122–125). Thus, understanding the Late Neolithic in Bavaria may also be a crucial puzzle
piece to understanding this wider sphere, including the Transdanubian Early Copper Age and the variety of
new social forms that could exist within it.
BiBlioGraPhy
Biermann, E. (1997). Großgartach und Oberlauterbach. Interregionale Beziehungen im süddeutschen
Mittelneolithikum. Archäologische Berichte 8. Bonn: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Ur- und Frügeschichte;
Habelt.
Chapman, J. (2013). From Varna to Brittany via Csőszhalom – Was there a »Varna Effect«? In A. Anders,
G. Kulcsár, with G. Kalla, V. Kiss & G. V. Szabó (eds.), Moments in Time. Papers presented to Pál Raczky
on his 60th birthday (pp. 323–335). Budapest: ELTE – L’Harmattan.
Czerniak, L. & Pyzel, J. (2016). Being at home in the Early Chalcolithic. The longhouse phenomenon in
the Brześć Kujawski Culture in the Polish Lowlands. Open Archaeology 2, 97‒114. https://doi.org/10.1515/
opar-2016-0007
Eibl, F. (2011). Die Bayerische Gruppe der Stichbandkeramik und die Gruppe Oberlauterbach – zum Stand
der Forschung. Fines Transire 20, 79‒100.
Ganslmeier, R. (2009). Lost villages: Wallerdorf – ein Weilerhof der Münchshöfener Kultur. Bemerkungen
zu terrestrischen Siedlungen der frühen Kupferzeit. In L. Husty, M. Rind & K. Schmotz (eds.), Zwischen
Münchshöfen und Windberg. Gedenkschrift für Karl Böhm (pp. 109–130). Rahden: Leidorf.
Gleser, R. (1995). Die Epi-Rössener Gruppen in Südwestdeutschland. Untersuchungen zur Chronologie,
stilistischen Entwicklung und kulturellen Einordnung. Bonn: Habelt.
Gleser, R. (2016). Neue Überlegungen zur Chronologie der postbandkeramischen Kulturphänomene in
Mitteleuropa. In J. Kovárník et al. (eds.), Centenary of Palliardi’s Neolithic and Aeneolithic Relative
Chronology (1914‒2014) (pp. 107‒116). Hradec Králové – Ústí nad Orlicí: University of Hradec Králové,
Philosophical Faculty.
Hofmann, D. & Gleser, R. (2019). The fth millennium: The emergence of cultural diversity in Central
European prehistory. In D. Hofmann & R. Gleser (eds.), Contacts, Boundaries and Innovation in the Fifth
Millennium. Exploring developed Neolithic societies in Central Europe and beyond (pp. 13‒42). Leiden:
Sidestone Press.
Hofmann, D. & Husty, L. (2019). Enclosures, structured deposits and selective innovations: Riedling and
the role of the South Bavarian Münchshöfen Culture in the new networks of the Late Neolithic. In J. Müller,
M. Hinz & M. Wunderlich (eds.), Megaliths – Societies – Landscapes. Early Monumentality and Social
Differentiation in Neolithic Europe. Volume 3. Proceedings of the international conference »Megaliths –
Societies – Landscapes. Early Monumentality and Social Differentiation in Neolithic Europe« (16th–20th
June 2015) in Kiel (pp. 939‒956). Bonn: Habelt.

Márton Szilágyi – Ludwig Husty – Daniela Hofmann • Between Worlds
19
HUNGARIAN ARCHAEOLOGY E-JOURNAL • 2020 Spring
Hofmann, D., Husty, L. & Szilágyi, M. (2018). Chronologie, Vernetzungen, Sozialstrukturen: Das Erdwerk
von Riedling, Niederbayern, und seine Rolle im Jungneolithikum Mitteleuropas. In F. Nikulka, D.
Hofmann & R. Schumann (eds.), Menschen – Dinge – Orte. Aktuelle Forschungen des Instituts für Vor- und
Frühgeschichtliche Archäologie der Universität Hamburg (pp. 163‒170). Hamburg: Institut für Vor- und
Frühgeschichtliche Archäologie, Universität Hamburg.
Husty, L. (2011). Südostbayern in der zweiten Hälfte des 5. Jahrtausends v. Chr. – Forschungsfortschritte
der letzten 20 Jahre. Fines Transire 20, 129–147.
Husty, L. & Meixner, G. (2009). Ein neues Münchshöfener Grabenwerk in Riedling, Gde. Oberschneiding,
Lkr. Straubing-Bogen. Erster Vorbericht zu den archäologischen Grabungen des Jahres 2007. In K. Schmotz
(ed.), Vorträge des 27. Niederbayerischen Archäologentages (pp. 29–63). Rahden: Leidorf.
Jeunesse, C. (2019). The fth millennium BC in Central Europe. Minor changes, structural continuity: a
period of cultural stability. In D. Hofmann & R. Gleser (eds.), Contacts, Boundaries & Innovation in the
Fifth Millennium. Exploring developed Neolithic societies in Central Europe and beyond (pp. 105‒128).
Leiden: Sidestone Press.
Klassen, L. (2004). Jade und Kupfer. Untersuchungen zum Neolithisierungsprozess im westlichen
Ostseeraum unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Kulturentwicklung Europas 5500–3500 BC. Århus:
Jutland Archaeological Society – Moesgård Museum.
Klassen, L., Cassen, S. & Pétrequin, P. (2012). Alpine axes and early metallurgy. In P. Pétrequin, S. Cassen,
M. Errera, L. Klassen, A. Sheridan et al. (eds.), Jade – Grandes haches alpines du Néolithique européen.
Ve et IVe millénaires av. J.‒C. (pp. 1280–1309). Les Cahiers de la MSHE Ledoux 17, Série Dynamiques
Territoriales 6. Besançon: Presses Universitaires de Franche-Comté and Centre de Recherche archéologique
de la Vallée de l’Ain.
Lichardus, J. (1991). Die Kupferzeit als historische Epoche. Versuch einer Deutung. In J. Lichardus, with
R. Echt (eds.), Die Kupferzeit als historische Epoche. Teil 2. (pp. 763–800). Bonn: Habelt.
Meixner, D. (2009). Ausnahme oder Regel – Zum Phänomen der Münchshöfener Bestattungen. In K.
Schmotz (ed.), Vorträge des 27. Niederbayerischen Archäologentages (pp. 91–144). Rahden: Leidorf.
Meixner, D. (2016). Fossae sub muris tectae – Neolithische Hausgrundrisse unter einer römischen villa
rustica bei Gaimersheim, Lkr. Eichstätt (Oberbayern). In J. Pechtl, T. Link & L. Husty (eds.), Neue
Materialien des Bayerischen Neolithikums. Tagung im Kloster Windberg vom 21. bis 23. November 2014
(pp. 87‒97). Würzburg: Würzburg University Press. https://doi.org/10.25972/WUP-978-3-95826-045-0
Meixner, D. (2017). Alles „klassisch“? Überlegungen zur inneren Chronologie der frühjungneolithischen
Münchshöfener Kultur. Bayerische Vorgeschichtsblätter 82, 7–56.
Mottes, E., Nicolis, F. & Schlichtherle, H. (2002). Kulturelle Beziehungen zwischen den Regionen nördlich
und südlich der Zentralalpen während des Neolithikums und der Kupferzeit. In G. Schnekenburger (ed.),
Über die Alpen. Menschen – Wege – Waren (pp. 119–135). Stuttgart: Theiss.
Pavúk, J. (2000). Das Epilengyel/Lengyel IV als kulturhistorische Einheit. Slovenská Archeológia 48 (1),
1‒23.

Márton Szilágyi – Ludwig Husty – Daniela Hofmann • Between Worlds
20
HUNGARIAN ARCHAEOLOGY E-JOURNAL • 2020 Spring
Riedhammer, K. (2016). Zwischen Großgartach, Stichbandkeramik und Mährisch Bemalter Keramik. In J.
Kovárník et al. (eds.), Centenary of Palliardi’s Neolithic and Aeneolithic Relative Chronology (1914‒2014)
(pp. 127‒148). Hradec Králové – Ústí nad Orlicí: University of Hradec Králové, Philosophical Faculty.
Sraka, M. (2012). 14C calendar chronologies and cultural sequences in 5th millennium BC in Slovenia and
neighbouring regions. Documenta Praehistorica 39, 349‒376. https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.39.26
Süss, L. (1976). Zur Münchshöfener Gruppe in Bayern. In H. Schwabedissen (ed.), Die Anfänge des
Neolithikums vom Orient bis Nordeuropa. Teil Vb Westliches Mitteleuropa (pp. 1–121). Köln: Böhlau.
Zápotocký, M. (2016). Jordanovská kultúra na východě Čech. Die Jordanów-Kultur im Osten Böhmens.
Památky Archeologické 107, 5‒49.