129UDK 903.5.08(4–15)''631\63''
Documenta Praehistorica XXXIV (2007)
Mesolithic heritage in early Neolithic burial rituals
and personal adornments
Eva Lenneis
Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte, University of Vienna, Austria
eva.lenneis@univie.ac.at
Introduction
Burial rituals are a very traditional matter. There-
fore, it looks especially interesting to search fortheir roots in a preceding period. I know quite wellthat I am not the first and will not be the last to dothis for the early Neolithic and preceding Mesolithic.Therefore, I will reduce my contribution to a fewmain points, where I think I am able to make new,interesting observations.
Geographically my focal point is central Europe, with
a considerable attention given to the evidence of SEEurope, and I shall concentrate on three main topics:
❶the graveyard phenomenon as an impressive fact
of the early Neolithic in central Europe alongsidewith other sorts of burials inside and at the marginsof settlements;❷cremations and the use of colorants as funerary
rituals, which seem to be based on especially old tra-ditions;
❸adornments made of small snail-shells and the
teeth of wild animals – less known and less specta-cular than the spondylus ornaments, but extremely
interesting.
The graveyard phenomenonThe synonym for early Neolithic in central Europe is
Linear Pottery Culture (LPC). Graveyards are not theonly burial sites within this culture, but their consi-derable number of 53, with over 2000 graves ( Nie-
szery 1995.28, Abb. 7 ) all together is a sufficiently
impressive fact to warrant an interest in roots.ABSTRACT – Some burial rituals such as cremation or the use of colorants, especially ochre, have old
roots in the preceding Mesolithic and even in the Palaeolithic. The evidence for these old rituals ismore dense in central or western Europe than in south east Europe, whence most of the new Neo-lithic ideas came. Among the personal adornments a small amount of snail-shell ornaments, stagtusks, tusks of wild boar and pendants made from antler are of special interest. People wearing thesevery traditional, old adornments are generally equipped with precious ‘new’ things such as spondy-lus, ceramics, adzes etc, and therefore show them as high status people in early Neolithic society.
IZVLE∞EK – Nekateri neolitski pogrebni rituali, povezani s kremacijo in uporabo barvil, posebno okre,
imajo star izvor v predhodnem mezolitiku ali celo v paleolitiku. Ti stari rituali so pogostej∏i v srednjiin zahodni kot v jugovzhodni Evropi, od koder je pri∏la ve≠ina novih neolitskih idej. Med osebnimokrasjem je posebej zanimiva mala koli≠ina ornamentov iz pol∫jih hi∏ic, jelenovih dera≠ev, merja∏-≠evih oklov in obeskov, izdelanih iz rogovja. Umrlim, ki ve≠inoma nosijo to zelo tradicionalno, sta-ro okrasje, so v grob pridani tudi dragoceni ‘novi’ predmeti, narejenimi iz ∏koljke Spondylus , kerami≠-
ne posode, tesla, itd. Ti predmeti jih dolo≠ajo kot visoko cenjene osebe v zgodnje neolitski dru∫bi.
KEY WORDS – graveyards; use of ochre; snail-shell adornments; hunting attributes
Eva Lenneis
130At the moment there is no evidence for them from
the beginning. Only one small cemetery with 9 bu-rials in Tesetice, Moravia, was clearly begun duringthe earliest phase (Phase Ia, after Tich ý1962; Do≠-
kalova and Ko∏tu řík 1996 ).
The earliest LPC graveyards are spread all over cen-
tral Europe, the oldest at Tesetice issituated in the eastern part, as wellas two other cemeteries, Vedrovice,also in Moravia ( Podborsk ýet al.
2002), and Kleinhadersdorf in Lo-
wer Austria ( Neugebauer-Maresch
1992), which were both begun shor-
tly after Tesetice, which means dur-ing phase Ib, (after Tich ý1962). Son-
dershausen in Thuringia ( Kahlke
2004) and Flomborn in the Rhine-
land ( Richter 1969 ) are approxima-
tely the same age.
Compared to the central European
LPC the number of early Neolithicgraveyards in south east Europe isvery low. Most of the sites with bu-rials are settlements with intramuralburials ( Bori≤ 1999; Lichter 2001.
37 Tab. 1, 180 Tab. 11; Perlès 2001.273). These early Neolithic burials
are up to 500 years older in the cen-tral Balkans, and even more in Gre-ece, than those of central Europe. Allnew Neolithic ideas entered to cen-tral Europe, but the idea of buryingthe dead outside the settlement in a
special, perhaps sacrosanct site,seems not to have originated in thisregion.
In Europe the idea of burying the
dead in separate areas was a veryimportant innovation of the Meso-lithic. There is evidence for Mesoli-thic graveyards dated before 5500BC in south east Europe around theIron Gate, which is where two of thefive early Neolithic cemeteries are tobe found. Evidence for Mesolithic ce-meteries is very poor or even absentin east central Europe (where the el-dest Neolithic graveyards are situa-ted (see above) and only known fromthe north and north east of centralEurope ( Grünberg 2000. Abb. 112 A ).
Burial ritualsThe most common position of the deceased in the
early Neolithic Linear Pottery Culture (LPC) of cen-tral Europe is the flexed position on the left, moreseldom on the right side, in cemeteries as well as in
Fig. 1. Linear Pottery Culture – sites with incinerations. Main sites
with LPC – graves by Jeunesse 1997.Fig. 5 and catalogue 147–158 .
Sites with incinerations added as follows: 19 – Geleen/NL, 20 – Nie-dermerz, 26 – Schwetzingen, 27 – Mannheim-Seckenheim, 28 – Fel-lbach-Oeffingen, 55 – Aiterhofen-Ödmühle, 56 – Stephansposching,61 – Arnstadt, 73 – Wandersleben-Gotha/D, 83 – Kleinhadersdorf/A, 88 – Nitra/SK.
Fig. 2. Early and Middle Neolithic burial sites in souhteastern Eu-
rope (based on Bori≤ 1999.Fig. 24 , and Lichter 2001.40 and 173
(evidence of ochre) ).
Mesolithic heritage in early Neolithic burial rituals and personal adornments
131settlement burials. The stretched po-
sition – more often proven from Me-solithic burials – appears seldom(Kahlke 1954.Abb. 37 ).
Cremations within the early Neolithic LPC of central
Europe are known only in graveyards, and there isevidence for them just since a further developedphase of this culture, which is recently called middleLBK in western Central Europe ( Lüning 2005 ) and
‘Notenkopfkeramik ’ in eastern central Europe (phase
II after Tich ý1962). In some cases cremation buri-
als even clearly overlay graves with skeletons. Thisis the case in the well-known LPC cemetery of Nitrain Slovakia, where 4 of 8 cremation burials clearlywere situated above the inhumations ( Pavúk 1972.
39 and Plan 1 ). A very similar situation is to be seen
in the Kleinhadersdorf cemetery in Lower Austria(Neugebauer-Maresch and Lenneis 2007/08 ). In
both cases the number of the inhumations greatlyexceeds the incinerations which do not attain morethan 10 %, while in the Bavarian cemetery of Aiter-hofen it increases over 30% ( Nieszery 1995.88–90 ).
In other regions such as the Netherlands or Thurin-gia even over 40 % of the burials within one ceme-tery may be incinerations, as for example in Elsloo(Modderman 1985.100–101 ) and Wandersleben
(Hoffmann 1989.105 ).
In total the number of sites where cremation burials
of the LPC are proven is quite small ( Jeunesse 1997.
57–60; Nieszery 1995. 36 Abb. 9 ). Only in about a
fifth of the cemeteries are there also incinerations,and they seem to be restricted to parts of the LPCterritory (Fig. 1). One possible reason for this may betheir normally poorer preservation, as they oftenwere dug less deep into the ground.
Evidence for early Neolithic cremation burials from
south east Europe is very poor. The most impressivegraves that sort surely are the group of 14 incinera-tions at the edge of Soufli Magoula
in Greece ( Alram-Stern 1996.114;
Gallis 1996 ). In two early Neolithic
sites only one lonely cremation bu-rial inside the settlement area isknown, up to 3 incinerations from 3Middle Neolithic sites ( Lichter 2001.
377 Tab. 24 ).
Therefore, the intention to treat
death by burning the body seemsnot to have come from the south-east to central Europe either.
The distribution of Mesolithic crema-
tions shows a big gap in and aroundcentral Europe ( Grünberg 2000.fig.
45 A), so it does not really clear up the roots of this
ritual. The only possible statement may be that theknowledge and custom of burning the dead existedin the preceding Mesolithic of Europe and is evenproven from a few Palaeolithic sites, such as, forexample, Dolní Vestonice in Moravia ( Vl≠ek 1991.
11–12 ).
Ochre is used within the early Neolithic LPC burials,
mainly around the head of the dead. More seldomis ochre spread over the central part of the body. Inmany graveyards only part of the burials show thisritual; the number is very low in the Bavarian ceme-teries ( Nieszery 1995.162 ). In other regions of the
big LPC territory such as, for example in Alsace, theuse is so frequent that it gives the impression of be-ing a strict custom ( Jeunesse 1997.101–102 ). In sum,
Fig. 3. Linear Pottery Culture – gra-
ves with snail shell adornments(Nieszery 1995.Abb. 99, 100 ).
Fig. 4. Diagram about situation of snail shell adorn-
ments in the graves. Sites: QH = Quatzenheim, Al-satia, HS = Hoenheim – Souffleweyersheim, Alsa-tia, EH = Ensisheim, Alsatia, Vedr. = Vedrovice, ‘Zadvorem’, Moravia, SD = Saladorf, Austria, MD =Mitterndorf, Austria, KH = Kleinhadersdorf, Au-stria, SK = Sengkofen, Bavaria, MG = Mangolding,Bavaria, EA = Essenbach – Ammerbreite, Bavaria,AH = Aiterhofen, Ödmühle, Bavaria.
Tab. 1. Early Neolithic graves with small snail shell adornments made from local snail shells – except Karanovo (snail species unknown).
Sites: AH = Aiterhofen, Ödmühle, Bavaria, EA = Essenbach – Ammerbreite, Bavaria, Flomb. = Flomborn, Germany, KH = Kleinhadersdo rf, Austria, MD = Mittern-
dorf, Austria, MG = Mangolding, Bavaria, RD = Rutzing, Austria, SD = Saladorf, Austria, SK = Sengkofen, Bavaria, Vedr. = Vedrov ice, ‘Za dvorem’, Moravia,
Vedr.S.u.Lesa = Vedrovice, ‘πiroká u lesa’ Moravia, WS = sherd of body.Eva Lenneis
132Sitesituation Anthropology Cloth\adornments Grave goods
Grave n° flexed stretched orientation View to Infans Juvenil femal maleSnail- Spondy- pearlscomb ceramics flint boneGrindingGraphitshells lus stone stone
BULGARIA
KaranovoX W–O N adult 72
grave 13 needles
GERMANY
AH 32 R ONO–WSW NNW senil 234 1 4 4
33 back WNW–OSO SO adult 3 1 1 X
60 L OSO–WNW S matur 80 16 1 1 1+
143 L OSO–WNW S | 15–18 34 9 5 1
146 L O–W S | matur 10 3
150 X OSO–WNW NNW senil 96 6
EA 4 L ONO–WSW S 12-13 266 1
11 L O–W S ca.14 142 4 1 1
14 L O–W S adult* 1 1
18 L ONO–WSW S adult* 32 37
23 L ONO–WSW S matur X | 1 2 2
27 L O–W S matur* 217
29 L O–W | 10 1 6
Flomb. 7 SO–NW | 1 1 1 bone
MG 5 L ONO–WSW S | adult| 1 2
6 L O–W SW matur 122 2 3 WS
7 L NO–SW S | 6 1
13 R| SO–NW NO | x
SK 18 Back O–W S adult* 25 2 4 WS
26 L O–W S Adult 48 3 1
29 L O–W S adult* 86 1 1 1 WS 1
AUSTRIA
KH. 26 L SO–NW S I 124
MD. 420 L O–W S adult 28 12 1 2 WS
RD. 556 | | | 120 1 2
SD. 584 L NO–SW SO I 79 1 10 2 1
Vedr. 9\88 L SO–NW S 18-20 300 47 506 1
SUM23 2 3 38327 12 8 4 5 9 4 3 5 2GRAVES (+ 4*) (+3*)CZECHOSLOVAKIA  \ MORAVIA| |adult
adult|
|
|
Mesolithic heritage in early Neolithic burial rituals and personal adornments
133 Tab. 2. Early Neolithic graves with small snail shell adornments mainly made from marine snail shells. Sites: Cuiry = Cuiry – l es- Chaudardes, France, EH =
Ensisheim, Alsatia, HS = Hoenheim – Souffleweyersheim, Alsatia, QH = Quatzenheim, Alsatia, Wettolsh. = Wettolsheim, Alsatia.Sitesituation Anthropology Cloth \ adornments Grave goods
Grave n° flexed stretched orientation View to Infans Juvenil femal maleSnail- Spondy- pearls Shell ofceramic flint bone adze othershells lus stone mussel
FRANCE
Chichery,X | S–N O matur 3 1Grab 2
Cuiry G. 1 ventral II 10 x X 3
EH 6 L NO–SW O adult π10
13 L NO–SW O II 48 35 1 1 1 Idol
14 L W–O N II 18 581 stag
tusk
Frignicourt | | 817 801 bra- 1
celet chisel
HS 26 | III 4 2 1 1 Pyrit
39 X SO–NW adult 69
S L O–W adult 1
QH 5 X NW–SO | adult* 9 13 WS 1 1 1 Ochre
6 L NW–SO | 13–15 13 2  WS 1 1 11 + 4
ochres
7 X | | adult* 14 1 WS 9 1 1 1
Wettolsh. 0 | matur 5 π100 2
SUM55 4 1 4 3 1 3 2 4 3 4 4 4 4GRAVESFrignicourt | |
||the ritual of covering the dead or part of
them with ochre or red chalk seems tobe a custom of regionally variable impor-tance within the early Neolithic burialsof central Europe and not linked with sexor age or the abundance or lack of gravegoods.
In southeastern Europe the use of ochre
mainly is proven from the northeasternregion around the Carpathians (Fig. 2based on Lichter 2001.40 and 173 ). As
far as I know there is no evidence fromGreece or the Near East.
The use of ochre for funerary rituals is
well proven from European Mesolithicburials, where whole bodies were oftencovered with ochre, as it was the customin younger Palaeolithic burials yet ( Grün-
berg 2000.220 ).
Summing up the indications of some
grave rituals of the early Neolithic, wecan see that they show in large part tra-ditions surviving from preceding periods,and in the case of the cremation burialsand the use of ochre, these traditionsshould even be more based in the west-ern and central parts of Europe than inthe south east, where all the new ideasof the Neolithic way of life came from.
Personal ornamentsThe best-known ornaments in early Neo-
lithic graves in central Europe are thoseof the marine spondylus shell, imported
from the Aegean, or to a lesser extentfrom the Adriatic coast. These ornamentsare clearly connected to the richest bu-rials and must have been of extremelyhigh value. They are the most importantevidence of long-distance connectionsthrough Europe in early to middle Neoli-thic times ( Séfériades 1995; Müller 1997;
Kalicz and Szénászky 2001 ).
In a small number, in 39 of more than
2500 nearly Neolithic graves in centralEurope we find ornaments made of smallsnail shells of only a few species. About50 % of these graves are those of womenand equal 25 % those of men and child-
Eva Lenneis
134ren (for more details see Lenneis 2006 ). Most of the
snail shell ornaments are found on the head ( e.g.
in Aiterhofen, Fig. 3), around the neck, over bothand/or around the body (Fig. 4). They might havebeen sown on bonnets or heads, or on cloth as wasrecently proven for the supposed bonnet of a babyat the Kleinhadersdorf cemetery (grave Verf. 26 –Hartzhauser et al. 2007 ). Only in France are theresituations suggesting necklaces, or necklaces and
bracelets ( Gallay and Mathieu 1988; Jeunesse and
Schnitzler 1993 ).
Persons equipped with these snail shells are usually
buried in the flexed position on the left side, muchmore seldom on the right and a few stretched ontheir back. The frequencies of these positions are
Fig. 5. Position of the deceased: left) burials with snail shell adornments; right) burials without snail shells.
Sites: AH = Aiterhofen, Ödmühle, Bavaria, EA = Essenbach – Ammerbreite, Bavaria, EH = Ensisheim, Al-satia, MG = Mangolding, Bavaria, SK = Sengkofen, Bavaria, KH = Kleinhadersdorf, Austria, QH = Quatzen-heim, Alsatia, Vedr. = Vedrovice, ‘Za dvorem’, Moravia, Vedr.S.u.Lesa = Vedrovice, ‘πiroká u lesa’ Moravia.
Fig. 6. Early Neolithic graves in Central Europe with snail shell adornments (map based on Jeunesse
1997.fig. 1 ). 1 – Karanovo/BG; 2 – Kleinhadersdorf, 3 – Mitterndorf, 4 – Ratzersdorf, 5 – Saladorf/A; 6 –
Vedrovice/CS; 7 – Aiterhofen, 8 – Essenbach, 9 – Mangolding, 10 – Sengkofen, 11 – Flomborn/D; 12 – Ensis-heim, 13 – Hoenheim, 14 – Quatzenheim, 15 – Wettolsheim, 16 – Chichery, 17 – Cuiry les Chaudardes,18 – Frignicourt/F.
Mesolithic heritage in early Neolithic burial rituals and personal adornments
135very like the other LPC graves without these orna-
ments (Figs. 5a and 5b). Most of the stretched inhu-mations are known from the Alsatian site of Quatzen-heim ( Jeunesse 2005 ).
As can be seen in Tables 1 and 2, burials with snail
shell adornments were mainly richly equipped withother ornaments and grave goods. A remarkable factis the very high evidence of spondylus within them.
As seen in Table 1, 50 % of these 22 graves fromeastern central Europe also contained spondylus or-
naments. Adding to them the graves of the Rhinelandand France (Tab. 2) the portion goesdown to 41 %, which anyway repre-sents a multiple value of the LPCaverage of 10–5 % (in Bavaria up to27 %) of the graves containing spon-
dylus ornaments ( Nieszery 1995.
175).
In the Rhineland and west of it (Fig.
6/no. 11–17) small marine shells,such as columbella rustica , nucella
lapillus and others, had been used
(Jeunesse 1997.72; Bonnardin
2000.56 ). From Bavaria eastwards
(Fig. 6/no. 2–10) only shells of spe-cies living at the shores of brookletswere used, such as theodoxus danu-
bialis and the very similar lithogly-
phus naticoides (Brink-Kloke 1990.
440–441; Nieszery 1995.191; Pod-borsk ýet al. 2002.263; Hartzhauser
et al. 2007 ).It is most astonishing that there is
no evidence for these ornamentsfrom the large and rich Thuringiancemeteries, or from Slovakia.
From south east Europe the only
evidence comes from layer II in thenorth east section of the tell of Kara-novo (Fig. 6/no. 1), where a womanin a stretched position had 7 smallsnail shells around her head, fur-ther equipped with 2 bone needles(Ba≠varov 2003.47–48 and fig. 2.5 ).
Snail shell ornaments were quite
common in the Mesolithic of centraland western Europe ( Grünberg
2000.fig. 65 ); in the south east they
are only proven from the Iron Gates(Bori≤ 2006.9–10, 13 ), but there are
also several examples of these ornaments from theupper Palaeolithic, such as from the Hundsteig sitein Krems, Austria ( Neugebauer-Maresch 1993.78;
Probst 1991.foto p. 133 ). One gets the impression
that in Europe these ornaments are very traditionalsuch as ornaments made of the teeth of wild animals.There is rather unique evidence for a pair of tusksof wild boar from a men’s burial at the Kleinhaders-dorf cemetery in Austria (Fig. 7) ( Neugebauer-Ma-
resch 1992.Abb. 8 ). This man had some ochre over
his head too, but also ceramics, spondylus , and an
adze. There is further evidence of ornaments made
Fig. 7. Kleinhadersdorf/Austria, grave 81 ( Neugebauer-Maresch
1992.Abb. 8 ). 6 – layer of ochre, 7 – ceramic pot, 8 – spondylus,
9 – adze, 10 – bone awl, 11 – flint, 12 – pair of tasks of wild boar.
Fig. 8. Rutzing/Austria, grave 13 ( Kloiber and Kneidinger 1970.
Textabb. 2; Kloiber and Kneidinger 1968.Tafel IV/3; Binsteiner2006.40 Abb. 5 ). Grave of an adult man with and adze, spondylus
adornments, 1 arrow-head and blades of Bavarian flint as well as120 imitations of stag tusks.
Eva Lenneis
136of stag teeth, for example in a men’s grave at Vedro-
vice in Moravia, with two pairs of stag teeth besiderich, very Neolithic equipment ( Podborsk ýet al.
2002. grave n°15/75. 264, obr. 15 a, b and tab. XVI ).
Another man from the Austrian site of Rutzing hada luxurious outfit of spondylus , but a double neck-
lace of imitation stag teeth beside a large adze andarrow heads (Fig. 8) ( Kloiber-Kneidinger 1970.Tex-
tabb. 2; Binsteiner 2006.Abb. 5 ). The largest quan-
tity, of 31 stag teeth, comes from a male burial inSondershausen, Thuringia, which also contained alarge spondylus set (Kahlke 2004.grave SO 32 on
table 12 ). In the Bruchstedt cemetery, again in Thu-
ringia, even a small child (infans I) had been giventhese very typical hunter attributes ( Kahlke 2004.
grave RB 30 on table 25 ).
Other ornaments typical of hunters are decorated
pendants made from antler, such as are known fromthe Bavarian cemeteries of Aiterhofen, grave 158,and Sengkofen, grave 19 ( Nieszery 1995.196, Taf.
55/2 and 69/6 ), but also these persons have Neoli-
thic equipment such as adzes or even ceramic potsbeside their hunting arms.
ConclusionsI have tried to show within the grave rituals and
adornments of the dead some traditions which ap-parently survived from preceding periods, a feweven indicating very old roots in central and west-ern Europe. As traditions can not survive withoutpeople, these facts clearly indicate the survival ofsome of the autochthonous population. To me themost striking observation concerning these personswas that although their numbers might have beensmall, the way most of them were treated showsthem as integrated and highly esteemed people inearly Neolithic society.
ALRAM-STERN E. 1996. Die ägäische Frühzeit. Band 1 .
Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien.
BA∞VAROV K. 2003. Neolithic mortuary pratices. Intra-
mural burials in Bulgaria in their southeast Europeanand Anatolian context . BARD. Sofia.
BINSTEINER A. 2006. Drehscheibe Linz – Steinzeithandel
an der Donau. Linzer Archäologische Forschungen 37:
33–107 .
BORI≥ D. 1999. Places that created time in the Danube
gorge and beyond, c. 9000–5500 BC. In M. Budja (ed.),6
thNeolithic Studies. Documenta Praehistorica 26: 41–
70.
2006. New discoveries at the Mesolithic-Early Neolithic
site of Vlasac: Preliminary notes. Mesolithic Miscellany
18(1): 7–14 .
BRINK-KLOKE H. 1990. Das linienbandkeramische Grä-
berfeld von Essenbach-Ammerbreite, Ldkr. Landshut, Nie-derbayern. Germania 68: 427–481 .
DO∞KALOVÁ M., KOπTU ŘÍK P. 1996. Seskupení hrob ůno-
sitel ůkultury s lineární keramikou na neolitickém sídli∏ti
v Tě∏eticích – Kyjovicích, okr. Znojmo. Sborník Prací Filo-
zofické Brn ěnské University M 1: 5–30 .GALLAY G., MATHIEU G. 1988. Grabbeigaben der Bandke-
ramik von Ensisheim, Dép. Haut-Rhin (Elsass). Germania
66(2): 371–389 .
GALLIS K. 1996. Die Grabungen von Platia Magula Zar-
kou, Souphli Magula und Makrychori 2. In E. Alram-Stern(ed.), Ägäische Frühzeit. Band1 . Österreichische Akade-
mie der Wissenschaften, Wien: 521–551.
GRÜNBERG J. M. 2000. Mesolithische Bestattungen in
Europa . Internationale Archäologie 40. Verlag M. Leidorf.
Espelkamp.
HARZHAUSER M., LENNEIS E., NEUGEBAUER-MARESCH
C. 2007. Freshwater gastropods as Neolithic decoration:size selectiveness and perforation morphology as a resultof grinding techniques, Annalen Naturhistorisches Mu-
seum Wien 108 A, in press .
HOFFMANN E. 1989. Die Anfänge des Brandritus-Versuch
einer Deutung. In F. Schlette and D. Kaufmann (eds.), Re-
ligion und Kult in ur- und frühgeschichtlicher Zeit: 99–123.
JEUNESSE C. 1997. Pratiques funéraires au néolithique
ancien. Sépultures et nécropoles danubiennes 5500–4900 av. J.-C . Éditions Errance, Paris.REFERENCES∴∴
Mesolithic heritage in early Neolithic burial rituals and personal adornments
1372005. Nouvelles données sur la nécropole du Néoli-
thique ancien de Quatzenheim (Bas-Rhin). Cahiers Al-
saciens d’Archéologie, d’Art et d’Histoire XLVIII: 5–30 .
JEUNESSE C., SCHNITZLER B. 1993. Les premiers agricul-
teurs. Le néolithique en Alsace . Strasbourg.
KAHLKE D. 1954. Die Bestattungssitten des Donauländi-
schen Kulturkreises. Teil I. Linienbandkeramik . Verlag
Rütten & Loening. Berlin.
KAHLKE H.-D. 2004. Sondershausen und Bruchstedt.
Zwei Gräberfelder mit älterer Linienbandkeramik inThüringen . Weimarer Monographien zur Ur- und Frühge-
schichte 39. Thüringisches Landesamt für ArchäologischeDenkmalpflege. Weimar.
KALICZ N., SZÉNÁSZKY J. 2001. Spondylus – Schmuck im
Neolithikum des Komitats Békés, Südostungarn. Prähisto-
rische Zeitschrift 76/1: 24–54 .
KLOIBER Ä., KNEIDINGER J. 1968. Die neolithische Sied-
lung und die neolithischen Gräberfundplätze von Rutzingund Haid, Ortsgemeinde Hörsching, politischer BezirkLinz-Land, Oberösterreich. Jahrbuch Oberösterreichischer
Musealverein 113–1: 9–66 .
1970. Die neolithische Siedlung und die neolithischen
Gräberfundplätze von Rutzing und Haid, OrtsgemeindeHörsching, politischer Bezirk Linz-Land, OÖ. Jahrbuch
Oberösterreichischer Musealverein 115–1: 21–38 .
LENNEIS E. 2006. Kleine Schmuckschnecken in linearband-
keramischen Gräbern – ein Mosaikstein für unsere Vorstel-lung von der Neolithisierung Europas? In D. Gronenborn(ed.), Die Neolithisierung Europas. RGZM – Tagungen,
Band 2. in print .
LICHTER C. 2001. Untersuchungen zu den Bestattungssit-
ten des südosteuropäischen Neolithikums . Monographien
Internationale Kommission für die Erforschung des Bal-kans 5. Mainz.
LÜNING J. 2005. Bandkeramische Hofplätze und die abso-
lute Chronologie der Bandkeramik. In J. Lüning and A.Zimmermann (eds.), Die Bandkeramik im 21. Jahrhun-
dert. Symposium Brauweiler 2002 . Internationale Ar-
chäologie: Reihe Symposien-Tagungen. Espelkamp: 49–74.
MODDERMAN P. J. R. 1985. Die Bandkeramik im Graet-
heidegebiet, Niederländisch-Limburg. Bericht der Rö-
misch-Germanischen Kommission 66: 25–121 .MÜLLER J. 1997. Neolithische und chalkolithische Spondy-
lusartefakte. In Chronos. Festschrift für B. Hänsel, Inter-
nationale Archäologie. Studia Honoraria 1: 91–106 .
NEUGEBAUER-MARESCH C. 1992. Der bandkeramische
Friedhof von Kleinhadersdorf, NÖ. Archäologie Öster-
reichs 3/1: 5–11 .
1993. Altsteinzeit im Osten Österreichs . Wissenschaft-
liche Schriftenreihe Niederösterreich 95/96/97, St. Pöl-ten-Wien.
NEUGEBAUER-MARESCH C., LENNEIS E. 2007/08. Das li-
nearbandkeramische Gräberfeld von Kleinhadersdorf.Fundberichte aus Österreich, Materialhefte – in prepara-tion.
NIESZERY N. 1995. Linearbandkeramische Gräberfelder
in Bayern . Internationale Archäologie 16, Verlag M. L.
Leidorf Espelkamp.
PAVÚK J. 1972. Neolithisches Gräberfeld in Nitra. Sloven-
ská Archeologia XX(1): 5–105 .
PERLÈS C. 2001. The early neolithic in Greece. The first
farming communities in Europe . Cambridge World Ar-
chaeology. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
PODBORSK ÝV. et al. 2002. Dvěpoh řebi∏t ěneolitického
lidu s lineární keramikou ve Vedrovicích na Morav ě.
Ustav archeologie a muzeologie filozofická fakulta Masa-rykovy univerzity. Brno.
PROBST E. 1991. 
Deutschland in der Steinzeit . Bertels-
mann Verlag München.
RICHTER I. 1969. Die bandkeramischen Gräberfelder von
Flomborn, Kreis Alzey, und vom Adlerberg bei Worms.Mainzer Zeitschrift 63/64: 158–179 .
SÉFÉRIADÈS M. L. 1995. Spondylus Gaederopus: the ear-
liest European Long Distance Exchange System, Poro≠ilo
o raziskovanju paleolitika, neolitika in eneolitika v Slo-veniji XXII: 233–256 .
TICH ÝR. 1962. Osídlení s volutovou keramikou na Mora-
vě. Památky Archeologické 53: 245–305 .
VL∞EK E. 1991. Die Mammutjäger von Dolní V ěstonice.
Anthropologische Bearbeitung der Skelette aus Dolní V ě-
stonice und Pavlov. Archäologie und Museum 22: 11–
12.