Bondár Mária: Prehistoric wagon models in the Carpathian Basin (3500-1500 BC). Budapest 2012. Archaeolingua. Series minor 32.

Full text

ARCHAEOLINGUA
Edited by
ERZSÉBET JEREM and WOLFGANG MEID
Series Minor
32

Mária Bondár
Prehistoric wagon models
in the Carpathian Basin
(3500–1500 BC)
BUDAPEST 2012

The publication of this volume was funded by
a generous grant from the National Cultural Fund of Hungary
Front Cover Illustration
Börzönce, Early Bronze Age wagon model (photo by Tibor Kádas)
Back Cover Illustration
Unprovenanced Early Bronze Age wagon model from the
collection of the Hungarian National Museum
(after http://www.hnm.hu/utils/GalleryLarge.php?ItemID=2736&PicNum=0)
ISBN 978-963-9911-34-5
HU-ISSN 1216-6847
© The Author, Archaeolingua Foundation
© English translation: Magdaléna Seleanu
© Illustrations: Tibor Kádas, László Gucsi,
Sándor Ősi, Ákos Jurás, Ágnes Vida, Béla Kiss
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, digitised, photo copying,
recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher.
2012
ARCHAEOLINGUA ALAPÍTVÁNY
H-1250 Budapest, Úri u. 49
Cover design by Erzsébet Jerem and Gergely Hős
Desktop editing and layout by Rita Kovács
Printed in Hungary by Prime Rate Kft.

Contents
1. Introduction .................................................................................................. 7
2. Previous research ....................................................................................... 11
3. Copper Age ............................................................................................... 21
3.1. Archaeological evidence for the earliest wagons and wheels ............. 21
3.2. How to spot a wagon model ............................................................... 27
3.3. Late Copper Age wagon models ......................................................... 29
3.4. Discussion .......................................................................................... 43
3.5. Late Copper Age zoomorphic depictions .......................................... 48
4. Early and Middle Bronze Age ................................................................... 57
4.1. Miniature wheels ................................................................................ 57
4.2. Wagon models ..................................................................................... 59
4.3. Discussion ........................................................................................... 71
4.4. Zoomorphic depictions ....................................................................... 85
5. Conclusions ................................................................................................ 91
6. Catalogue ................................................................................................. 103
6.1. Late Copper Age wagon models from Hungary ............................... 103
6.2. Early and Middle Bronze Age wagon models from Hungary .......... 107
7. References ................................................................................................. 111
Appendix ...................................................................................................... 135

1. Introduction
The invention of the wheel and of wheeled vehicles was one of the major
innovations with a lasting impact on human history. The place where wheels,
rudimentary vehicles and, later, heavy four-wheeled carts were discovered
remains a controversial, much-debated issue in prehistoric research. Most school
textbooks and even conventional wisdom holds that wheeled vehicles were
invented in Mesopotamia, from where it spread to the rest of the world.
The fi rst major overview of vehicle depictions (rock carvings and wheel
models) was written by Gordon Childe, the renowned English prehistorian, in
1951. His conclusions on the origins of wheeled vehicles were refuted a few years
later with the discovery of the Budakalász model, a four-wheeled wagon that is
cited in every textbook and in most works written for the general public. The
Budakalász vehicle model was found in Central Europe, in a cultural context well
before the Bronze Age and it also predated the similar fi nds from Mesopotamia.
Despite the proliferation of studies on early wheeled vehicles, few major
advances were made in this fi eld of research. Studies on early vehicles focused
on the typological traits of the known models and depictions, on their distribution
and on the probable place of invention, as well as on the role of the known models,
which were believed to have been vested with a ritual function. Explanations
were sought for the function and role of the clay models, usually through parallels
drawn from the mythology of various ancient peoples, which served to illustrate
the association between wagons and the gods or wagons and the afterlife. Although
fascinating in themselves, most of these studies have by now been relegated to
the bookshelf of research history.
A new approach was heralded by Andrew Sherratt’s model, which broke with
the earlier focus on artefacts and instead examined the economic signifi cance of
wheeled vehicles. The main point of his model, known as the Secondary Products
Revolution, was that the primary exploitation of animals involved the use of their
meat, fat and hide, as well as their bones and horns after they had been butchered.
Sometime in the 4th millennium BC, there came the revolutionary discovery that
animals could be exploited in various other ways too (milk, wool and traction).
This brought the realisation that it might be more profi table to breed animals,
rather than to immediately butcher them. Sherratt later elaborated on his model,
which determined the course of studies in this fi eld for several decades because it
seemed to provide acceptable, although often unprovable answers to most, even
if not all questions. Like most disciplines, archaeology is constantly in fl ux, and

8
thus Sherratt’s ingenious model too came under critical fi re, even if convincing
evidence for challenging some of his claims has only become available more
recently, following a series of archaeometric analyses.
Studies in the later 20th century generally focused on the ritual dimensions
and the distribution of wheeled vehicles; more recently, the emphasis has shifted
to the role of vehicles in trade, animal husbandry and economic changes. These
themes have been explored at various conferences and in collections of thematic
studies. The appearance and spread of wheeled vehicles has become an important
facet of linguistic studies on the origins of the Indo-Europeans. It has recently
been suggested that the wagon was an innovation inspired by economic necessity
and that its extensive use can only be noted in regions, where there was a socio-
economic need for wheeled vehicles.
Today, our knowledge of early wheeled vehicles is not restricted to wheel
depictions appearing on vessels, rock engravings, simple clay models and
miniature animal fi gurines. Important new evidence for the wide distribution
of this important innovation comes from many different areas of Europe in the
form of genuine wheels made from wood, wooden axles, wheel-ruts and wooden
trackways, as well as from the possibly traction-induced pathologies on cattle
bones. Meticulously excavated wooden fi nds can be reliably and accurately dated
by dendrochronology and thus there is accumulating evidence that wheels and
wheeled vehicles had been used in several regions of the world already during the
earlier 4th millennium.
Wagons had an immense importance in the life of prehistoric communities,
contributing to the emergence of an invisible network of contacts between centre
and periphery. They played a crucial role in travel, transport, communication and
contact between distant communities, in economic and cultural interaction, and
in the transmission of customs, material goods and exotic commodities. In view
of the rarity and uniqueness of this technical innovation, as well as its role in
expressing prestige, it is hardly surprising that a symbolic meaning was often
attached to vehicles, and that they were accorded a prominent role the realm of
beliefs, offering an explanation for why some individuals were wealthier and
enjoyed more power and authority in their community.
The impact of wheeled vehicles on daily life is incontestable. Following their
initial mystifi cation, wagons, carts and chariots became widely used utilitarian,
commercial and military crafts. Ritual symbols (miniature wheels, wagon models
and the draught animals harnessed to wagons) and the genuine, real-life wagons
on which they were modelled existed simultaneously.

9
This major and continually improved innovation has left many traces in the
archaeological record, and there is a voluminous literature on various aspects of
wheeled vehicles, ranging from descriptions and classifi cations of the artefactual
material and surviving depictions to studies on their role in trade and transport.
Countless studies have been devoted to the archaeozoological aspects and
social dimensions of vehicles, to their relevance for interaction between various
communities, their role in contact between nomads and urban communities, as well
as to their origins, their signifi cance in linguistic and mythological research, their
function in funerary rites, and their uses in warfare and public entertainment.
Research during the past decades has sought to answer several questions.
The different wagon depictions, the discovery of genuine wagon remains and
the dating of the fi nds using modern archaeometric techniques (radiocarbon,
dendrochronology, thermoluminescence) have signifi cantly modifi ed earlier
chronologies and have raised a spate of new problems. It is still an open issue
whether wagons spread from a single centre (Ancient Near East, Egypt, the
Sahara, Central and Northern Europe, the Mediterranean, Central Asia, India,
China), or whether we should assume a development from multiple origins.
In the following chapters, I shall fi rst review previous research on wheels and
wheeled vehicles during the past decades, followed by a survey of the earliest
archaeological evidence on wheeled vehicles. The next two chapters focus on the
Late Copper Age and Bronze Age clay wheels and wagon models, and on a new
Bronze Age model decorated in a previously unencountered manner.1 Finally, I
have assembled a catalogue of the currently known wagon models from Hungary.
The most important data of the sites mentioned in the text are summarized at
the end of the book, alongside a map showing the location of the sites discussed
here.
1 The sites in the Carpathian Basin are quoted according to their current offi cial name.
The sites which now lie in neighbouring countries, but once lay in historical Hungary,
are listed in the Appendix. The sites quoted in the text are shown in Fig. 37 and the
most important information on these sites also appears in the Appendix.

10
Acknowledgements
I owe a debt of gratitude to many people, without whom this book would not
have been written. Thanks are due to Eszter Bánffy, who encouraged me to write
this study, and to László Bartosiewicz for his insightful comments on the draught
version of the manuscript. I am grateful to György Székely for sharing his
knowledge on the Nemesnádudvar model and to Etelka Kövecses Varga, András
Rajna, János Dani, Judit Koós and Júlia Kisfaludi for bringing newly-found
miniature vehicles to my attention. The illustrations were prepared by Sándor
Ősi, László Gucsi and Ágnes Vida; the photographs were made by Sándor Ősi,
Béla Kiss, Ákos Jurás and Tibor Kádas.
My sincere thanks go to Erzsébet Jerem and her colleagues for their meticulous
work in editing the manuscript.

11
2. Previous research
The fi rst comprehensive overview of wagon models was written by Vere Gordon
Childe, whose studies are rightly considered the classics of prehistoric research
(CHILDE 1935, 1950, 1951, 1954). Childe had argued that the wagon models
from Mesopotamia and the Caucasus indicated the extensive use of wheeled
vehicles in the Ancient Near East during the 3rd millennium BC, while in Greece
and the northern Caucasus, wheeled vehicles appeared around the mid-2nd
millennium BC, and their appearance in Italy and Central and Northern Europe
can be dated as late as 1100–1000 BC (CHILDE 1951, 188). In his study on wheels,
Childe modifi ed his earlier views, arguing that wagons had appeared by the late
3rd millennium BC in the Ukraine and the Lower Volga region, and that wheeled
vehicles were probably known by 2200–1800 BC in the Middle Volga region and
central Germany. He dated the general use of wagons on the Eastern European
steppe, as well as in Austria and Italy between 1750–1250 BC (CHILDE 1954).
The publication of the fi rst wagon model discovered in the Carpathian Basin
appeared roughly simultaneously with Childe’s study (SOPRONI 1954). The wagon
model from Budakalász, recovered from a professionally excavated, securely
datable burial gave a fresh impetus to studies in this fi eld and modifi ed the earlier
dating of the use of wheeled transportation. It was now beyond doubt that wagons
had been known well before the Bronze Age. In his study on the vessel shaped
wagon models found in two graves of the Budakalász cemetery (Graves 158 and
177), the currently known largest burial ground of the Baden culture, Sándor
Soproni discussed the possible function and cultural connections of the models.
He postulated a possible steppe origin for these wagons since no comparable
fi nds were known from the Balkans that would have provided a link between the
Carpathian Basin and the Ancient Near East (SOPRONI 1954). Soproni’s article
remained largely unknown to the international archaeological community and the
Budakalász wagon model only became more widely known after the publication
of István Foltiny’s study (FOLTINY 1959).
The pioneering study on wagon models and wheels from the Carpathian Basin
was written by István Bóna, who noted that miniature wheels are in themselves
ample proof for the existence of wheeled vehicles (BÓNA 1960, Fig. 3; Fig. 1).2
Bóna focused on the Bronze Age fi nds because the Budakalász model was the single
2 Unfortunately, there is no caption with the fi ndspots to Bóna’s map. The numbers
appearing on the map and the numbers under which the sites are listed in the text
cannot be correlated, and thus it is sometimes diffi cult to identify a site on the map.

12
Copper Age wagon model known from Europe at the time. Intact or fragmentary
wagon models had come to light on nine of the seventy-three sites yielding fi nds
of this type, while only miniature wheel models were reported from the other sites
(BÓNA 1960, 92, 104, Fig. 7). In his evaluation of the fi nds, spanning the period
from the Late Copper Age to the Early Iron Age, Bóna discussed the origins of
wagons and their appearance in the Carpathian Basin, and he also proposed a
typological sequence for them (BÓNA 1960, 87–89, Fig. 3).3 Bóna concluded
that wagons had fi rst appeared in the ancient civilisations of Mesopotamia, Syria
and Anatolia, whence they spread northward to Crete and the Caucasus at the
turn of the 3rd and 2nd millennia BC. He suggested that wagons had reached the
Carpathian Basin from the Balkans along the route leading through the Marica and
Morava river valleys, and along the route from the Pontic and the Lower Danube
region (BÓNA 1960, 110). Similarly to Childe, Bóna attached a great importance
to clay wheel models which, being wagon fi xtures, furnished indisputable proof
for the existence and use of wagons. Bóna’s study was ground-breaking in another
respect too. Earlier, widely different functions had been proposed for these small
3 Bóna published the models from Gyulavarsánd (Vărşand, Romania), Novaj, Szamos-
újvár (Gherla, Romania), Wietenberg (Segesvár/Sighişoara, Romania), Budakalász
and Palaikastro (Greece).
Fig. 1. Clay wagon models of the Copper and Bronze Age (after BÓNA 1960, Fig. 3).

13
clay discs, ranging from spindle whorls and simple discs to small vessel lids
and miniature Sun discs. Following his graduation, Bóna spent several years
systematically collecting and cataloguing the Bronze Age fi nds of Hungary, sifting
through the collections in almost every rural museum and personally examining
each fi nd. He was thus able to distinguish the genuine wheel models on which the
hub was indicated from the other clay discs. By assembling the corpus of the then
known clay wheels from the Carpathian Basin, Bóna proved that there had been
considerably more wagon models than had actually come to light.
The growing interest in the history of ancient religions during the 1960s
also had a profound infl uence on archaeological studies. Prehistorians sought to
explain the function of vessels modelled in the shape of wheeled vehicles and
suggested that the wagon models had been used in various rituals, citing examples
from various religious beliefs for the linkages between wheeled vehicles and the
gods, and between wagons and the afterlife.
Despite the many works published after the pioneering studies written by
Childe and Bóna, both classics in their own right, few major advances were made
in this fi eld of research. Most of the new articles and books concentrated on the
typological traits of wagon models, on the probable place of the innovation and
on the distribution of wheels and wheeled vehicles. For many decades, the general
consensus was that wheeled vehicles had been invented in Mesopotamia, whence
they spread to other regions. This view refl ected the interpretative framework of
the 1960s and later decades, characterised by a predilection for drawing elaborate
routes whereby artefacts were diffused. There was very little interest in what
caused social and economic changes in the life of prehistoric communities and
even less in searching for possible imprints of these changes in the archaeological
record.
The three roughly contemporaneous major centres of the distribution of
wheeled vehicles (the Ancient Near East, the Eurasian steppe and Central
Europe)4 were studied more intensively by several scholars. A few masterly
studies appeared on the fi nds from a particular region and on specifi c aspects of
early wheeled vehicles, such as Emmanuel Anati’s work on the two-wheeled war
chariots of Europe, which he derived from Anatolia (ANATI 1960), and Stuart
Piggott’s overview of wheeled vehicles (PIGGOTT 1974, 1979, 1983, 1987, 1992).
Piggott was principally interested in the horse-drawn vehicles of the Ancient Near
4 The wheeled vehicles from India, China and Africa are not discussed here because they
have little in common with the wagon models from the Carpathian Basin.

14
East. Similarly to Childe, he regarded wheels a major innovation. In his view, the
adoption and subsequent development of wheeled vehicles could be dated earlier
than the 2nd millennium in the urban civilisations familiar with writing, and he
argued that wheeled vehicles were adopted from northern, non-urban population
groups (PIGGOTT 1978, 42).
Exhaustive studies on the wheeled vehicles of the Ancient Near East were
published by Mary A. Littauer and Joost H. Crouwel (LITTAUER – CROUWEL
1974, 1979, 2002), and by Wolfram Nagel (NAGEL 1966, 1986, 1992), while
Peter Roger Stuart Moorey provided an excellent overview of light chariots
(MOOREY 1986).
The wagons and chariots from the steppe were fi rst comprehensively discussed
by Alexander Häusler (HÄUSLER 1978, 1981, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1992). His
work was followed by studies written by Renate Rolle (ROLLE 1991), Elena F.
Kuz’mina (KUZ’MINÁ 2007) and Philip Kohl (KOHL 2009), offering an overview
of major new fi nds and the advances in vehicle studies. In addition to the already
known Copper Age vehicle models, several new fi nds have been published from
Altyn Depe in Turkmenistan (KIRTCHO 2009). While the connection between
horses and wagons has since long intrigued prehistorians, the currently available
archaeological evidence for the date when horse was domesticated is still
inconclusive for answering the key questions. Countless studies have addressed
this issue (ANTHONY 1995; ANTHONY – VINOGRADOV 1995; RAULWING 2000;
ANTHONY 2007; KUZ’MINA 2007), and the latest new fi ndings in this fi eld were
published by the research team led by Alan Outram (OUTRAM et al. 2011).
A major breakthrough in the research of early wheeled vehicles came with
the discovery of genuine wagons and their fi xtures. In his study on the Neolithic
wheel remains from Switzerland, Eugen Woytowitsch also surveyed the Bronze
Age wheels and wagon models (WOYTOWITSCH 1995), offering a broad overview
of wagon depictions and their signifi cance based on the fi nds from that region.
In a novel approach, he discussed a wide range of artefacts which could in one
way or another be linked to wagons (such as wheel depictions on jewellery
items and weapons). In his view, wheels were sacred symbols and attributes
associated with a deity and the heavens above, an interpretation suggested by the
diachronic examination of diverse archaeological fi nds brought to light across an
extensive region. He argued that wagons had spread together with the diffusion
of metalworking (WOYTOWITSCH 1995, 118). He wrote a separate study on the
Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age wagon models from Italy (WOYTOWITSCH
1978).

15
Several studies have been devoted to the wagon models from the Carpathian
Basin. Following Bóna’s seminal paper (BÓNA 1960), Nándor Fettich too
published a lengthy study on the artefacts he termed carrosserie models, covering
also the symbolic meaning and interpretation of the decoration on the wagon
boxes, and defi ning the criteria by which wagon models and depictions could be
conclusively identifi ed (FETTICH 1969, 32). In contrast to Bóna, Fettich did not
include the presence or absence of wheels among his criteria because in addition
to wheeled vehicles, various sledges and travoises (slide-cars) were also used in
prehistory, as shown by the Scandinavian examples cited by him (FETTICH 1969,
31). His other argument in this respect was that urns had sometimes also been set
on wheels (as, for example, the urn from Kánya). Fettich thus regarded various
rectangular, decorated vessels from the period spanning the Neolithic through the
Copper Age to the Middle Bronze Age as wagons,5 claiming that these objects
depicted funerary wagons on which the deceased were borne during their last
journey. Fettich believed that the rectangular artefact from Szelevény bearing a
depiction of a goddess and a forested landscape was a wagon (FETTICH 1969, 37,
Pl. I. 1–3). However, neither the date, nor the function of this enigmatic object
have yet been conclusively clarifi ed. Gábor Rezi Kató dated the vessel to the
late Bodrogkeresztúr/Hunyadi-halom transition of the Middle Copper Age (REZI
KATÓ 2001, 120), noting that the exact function of the vessel remains uncertain,
as does the interpretation of the symbols appearing on it. In her assessment of
the depictions on the vessel’s side, Tünde Horváth proposed an alternative date
and interpretation for the Szelevény model, quoting the fragment of a similar
rectangular vessel from Gomolava, found in a securely datable context. She
believes that the vessel should be assigned to the Kostolac culture representing
the transitional period between the Late Copper Age and the Early Bronze Age
(HORVÁTH 2009, 133; HORVÁTH 2011a, 229). However, the function and date of
this vessel remains unresolved for the time being.
The past few decades have seen a proliferation of studies on wagon models
from the Carpathian Basin and Central Europe dating from the Late Copper Age
(KALICZ 1976; NĔMEJCOVÁ-PAVÚKOVÁ – BÁRTA 1977; ECSEDY 1982; BONDÁR
1990, 1992, 2004, 2006; RUTTKAY 1995, 2000) and the Bronze Age (KALICZ
1968; ORDENTLICH – CHIDIOŞAN 1975; MESTERHÁZY 1976; NEUGEBAUER 1979;
5 Nándor Fettich lists several rectangular altars, house models and/or vessels, which are
not regarded as wheel models by most prehistorians.

16
OLEXA 1983, 1996; JAKAB – OLEXÁ – VLADÁR 1999; MÁTHÉ 1984; BONDÁR
1990, 1992).
In his overview of the Bronze Age tell cultures of Hungary, Bóna devoted a
separate chapter to wagon models and their occurrence in various cultures (BÓNA
1992, 1994).
A full inventory of the Middle Bronze Age wagon models from Romania
recently published by Nikolaus Boroffka (BOROFFKA 1994) was followed by
Christian Schuster’s work, which included additional pieces (SCHUSTER 1996).
The wagon models from Central Europe were covered by Markus Vosteen
in several studies (VOSTEEN 1996, 1998) and a monograph (VOSTEEN 1999), in
which he analysed the ritual role and dating of wagon models, supplemented by
a catalogue containing a detailed description of the models from the Copper Age
to the Iron Age. Vosteen quoted the evidence for the use of wagons in the Late
Neolithic, principally rock engravings, dating from between 4000 and 3000 BC
(VOSTEEN 1999, 42).
Recent studies on the Bronze Age wagon models of the Carpathian Basin
include a concise summary by Boroffka (BOROFFKA 2004) and the publication
of a new model from Nižná Myšľa (Alsómislye, Slovakia, OLEXA 2003, Fig. 11;
OLEXA – PITORÁK 2004, Fig. 2).
As mentioned in the above, studies on early wheeled vehicles gained a
fresh impetus during the past decades. The publication of various fi nds from
the Carpathian Basin enlarged the corpus of these fi nds, and in addition to the
typological analysis of the known models, new interpretations were also proposed
for the function and decoration of these artefacts.
Prehistorians working in Western Europe and the US took an entirely different
approach. Renewed interest in the origins and dispersal of the Indo-European
peoples and in a related problem, the date and place of domestication of the horse,
led to the exploration of the possible connection between horse breeding and the
invention and spread of wheeled vehicles, as well as their impact on social and
economic changes.
In 1981, Sherratt published his highly infl uential model on the Secondary
Products Revolution (SPR) (SHERRATT 1981), according to which the primary
exploitation of animals for their meat was eventually followed by the discovery
that domestic animals could also be exploited for their milk, wool and traction
power (SHERRATT 1981, 1983, 1997, 2003). This discovery had a profound
effect on human economy and society. In Sherratt’s view, the SPR emanated
from the civilisation of the Ancient Near East to Europe and Asia during the

17
4th millennium BC. He argued that the SPR was a process at least as important
as Childe’s Neolithic Revolution in that it involved the adoption of various
innovations such as the plough and transport based on animal traction, and the
spread of new domestic species such as the horse, the ass and wool sheep. The
population growth in the wake of the SPR led to the expansion of settlements and
major changes in animal breeding strategies. It also facilitated long-distance travel.
Sherratt later added two new elements to his model, the drinking revolution and
the importance of domesticated horse for riding and as a pack animal (SHERRATT
1997a). The Secondary Products Scenario (SPS) was conveniently summed up as
the “driving and drinking” revolution.
Sherratt’s imaginative model had a stimulating effect on the research on early
wheeled vehicles. Although his model came under critical fi re (GREENFIELD et
al. 1988; VOSTEEN 1996), the keen interest in prehistoric vehicles was refl ected
in the organisation of several thematic exhibitions and conferences exploring
various dimensions of this major innovation (RAD UND W AGEN 2002; WEGZEITEN
2004; RAD UND WAGEN 2004; PREMIERS CHARIOTS, PREMIERS ARAIRES 2006;
BETWEEN THE AEGEAN AND BALTIC SEAS 2007). The catalogue and the collection
of studies accompanying the exhibition staged in Oldenburg in 2004 (FANSA –
BURMEISTER 2004) offer a good overview of new research results, as well as
of the innovative approaches in this fi eld of research that have brought a fresh
perspective on several long-standing axioms.
In addition to the already known clay models, vessels bearing vehicle
depictions and the pictograms appearing in rock art, evidence on the early use of
wagons was enriched by fi nds of genuine wooden wheels and other wooden fi nds
confi rming the use of wagons.
The radiocarbon dates for new wooden fi nds clearly prove the contemporaneous
use of wheeled vehicles in several regions. Earlier views, according to which
the wagon was invented in the early urban cultures of southern Mesopotamia,
have been seriously challenged. Many scholars now suggest that wheeled
vehicles were invented independently of each other in multiple centres.6 Andrew
Sherratt (SHERRATT 2004) and Joseph Maran (MARAN 2004) have both proposed
elaborate models that have several points in common, but differ regarding the
route of diffusion. Both see the 4th millennium BC, and especially its later half,
as a period of intensive supra-regional contacts and transformations. Both focus
on the social receptiveness to the innovation rather than merely its adoption,
6 For a good overview, cp. BURMEISTER 2004.

18
examining what would today be called a “technological transfer” as part of a
broader package. They regard the “Uruk expansion” as a key phenomenon in the
diffusion of wheeled vehicles. Sherratt envisioned prehistoric communities as
resembling industrial societies in many respects. His main argument was that the
use of animal-drawn wagons was only conceivable in regions with a concentration
of various resources such as livestock, goods and manpower, and thus vehicles
were essentially used by the elite. He noted that a concentration of resources can
only be observed in the early urban centres of southern Mesopotamia and thus
the spread of the technology, including the package of animal-drawn ploughs and
wheeled vehicles, proceeded from south to north on the elite level (SHERRATT
2004, 421–423).
In contrast, Maran claimed that wheeled vehicles were invented on the
northern Pontic coast and were subsequently diffused from that region (MARAN
2004, 436–438). In his view, the technology of wheeled vehicles was mediated
southward by the Maikop culture of the Caucasus, known to be contemporaneous
with the Middle and Late Uruk period. Maran shares Sherratt’s view that this
technology transfer occurred on an elite level.
Lorenz Rahmstorf came to a similar conclusion after examining the distribution
of various trade commodities and innovations of the Early Bronze Age (cups of
the depas amphikypellon type, Syrian fl asks, decorated bone cylinders, cylinder
seals, sinkers, spools, weights, etc.). Various Anatolian and Mesopotamian
products and innovations rapidly spread to the Eastern Mediterranean at the time
of the so-called second urban revolution. Rahmstorf suggested that this rapid
diffusion could be explained by the fact that Aegean communities had reached a
similar level of civilisation and were receptive to new cultural goods (RAHMSTORF
2006, 76). It would appear that the social transformations at the time of the fi rst
and second urban revolution stimulated the mosaic-like diffusion of various
commodities, among them of wheeled vehicles.
It seems quite certain that major innovations appeared or were adopted in
regions where there was a social demand for them. It has recently been suggested
that the wagon was an innovation inspired by economic necessity and that its
extensive use can only be observed in regions where there was a socio-economic
need for wheeled vehicles. Sherratt’s SPR model has been heavily criticised
(cp. GREENFIELD et al. 1988; VOSTEEN 1996). It was challenged, amongst
others, on the grounds that milk consumption can be observed well before
the 4th millennium BC (GREENFIELD et al. 1988; CRAIG et al. 2003; VIGNE –
HELMER 2007; DUERR 2007; EVERSHED et al. 2008; GREENFIELD 2010) and

19
his claim that the horse was domesticated in the Ancient Near East has also
been refuted (ANTHONY – BROWN 2007). His views on the place of where the
invention of wheeled vehicles occurred are similarly contested.
In sum, we may say that the wheel and wheeled vehicles most likely did not
arrive to Europe from Mesopotamia. It is possible that these two innovations
originated from the Pontic, as Maran believes; however, the new Northern and
Western European fi nds dating from the Late Neolithic raise the possibility that
the wheel and wheeled vehicles were invented simultaneously in several places.
This would explain the differences in form and style between them, and why they
were accorded different roles in various societies and belief systems in Anatolia
and Europe.

21
3. Copper Age
3.1. Archaeological evidence for the earliest wagons and wheels
The above brief survey of previous research on the appearance of the wheel
and early wheeled vehicles refl ects the main tendencies and the diverse array
of approaches in this fi eld of research since the publication of Childe’s seminal
study.
Rock engravings, the handful of wagon models and the wagon depictions
incised onto clay vessels are no longer our only proof for the use of wagons. The
archaeological record has been enriched by new categories of evidence.
Research on early vehicles has expanded to include many different categories
of fi nds ranging from miniature wagon and wheel models to the remains of genuine
wagons, wheels and axles, as well as various other phenomena indicating the use
of vehicles such as wheel-ruts, wooden trackways and morphological alterations
on cattle bones caused by harnessing. New, more accurate dating methods
(radiocarbon, dendrochronology and thermoluminescence) and archaeometric
analyses provide a reliable framework for the spatial and temporal co-ordinates
of early vehicle fi nds. One of the key issues remains the place and date of this
important innovation, and the route or routes whereby it was diffused. New evidence
on the use of four-wheeled vehicles has signifi cantly modifi ed the assumed date
of the appearance of wheels and wheeled vehicles, as well as the suggested route
of the spread of this invention. Archaeometric analyses have proved useful not
only for the more accurate dating of the fi nds, but also regarding other evidence
related to early vehicles. For example, the possible traction-induced pathologies
on cattle bone have been the subject of archaeozoological research for at least
forty years (GHETIE – MATEESCO 1971; BARTOSIEWICZ et al. 1997). We thus have
an increasingly complex picture of the appearance of wheeled transportation, its
economic impact and the distribution of wheeled vehicles.
Interdisciplinary studies have conclusively proven that wheels (whether
genuine pieces made from wood or small miniatures in clay) are not in themselves
proof that they were accessories of wheeled vehicles – they may equally well
have been part of other wheeled conveyances too.
In the following, I shall briefl y recapitulate the data that have enriched our
knowledge of when wheeled vehicles fi rst began to be used, with a focus on the

22
wagon models from the Copper Age of the Carpathian Basin and the depictions
of the draught animals harnessed to these miniature vehicles.
The fi rst comprehensive overview of Copper Age wheel models was written
by Marin Dinu in his study on the wheel fi nds of the Cucuteni, Gumelniţa and
Petresţi cultures, all dating from before the 4th millennium (DINU 1981). Dinu
pointed out that the use of wheeled vehicles could thus be dated much earlier
than previously assumed, but his opinion was not widely accepted. However,
the radiocarbon dates for the miniature wheels from Jebel Aruda in Syria and
Arslantepe in Turkey confi rmed Dinu’s views because these wheel models were
roughly contemporaneous with the wheels incised on the renowned Bronocice
vessel, and thus they predated the earliest wagon models (BAKKER et al. 1999,
781). Jan Bakker and his colleagues re-published a number of all-but-forgotten
Copper Age wheel models from the Carpathian Basin such as the pieces from
Ózd-Kőaljatető, Ţebea and Vučedol-Várhegy (BAKKER et al. 1999, 781).
In 2001, Gábor Ilon published a fragmentary clay wheel model brought to light
at Szombathely-Metro áruház, a settlement of the late Lengyel–Balaton–Lasinja
culture, yet another fi nd predating the generally accepted earliest appearance
of wagons (ILON 2001, 476, Pl. I), a date which was at the time received with
disbelief.
Aside from the vessels with wagon depictions found on the steppe, the
perhaps best known depiction of a wheeled vehicle incised on a clay pot comes
from Bronocice in Poland (KRUK – MILISAUSKAS 1991, Fig. 3). Its discovery
opened a new chapter in the research of European wheeled vehicles. The vessel
could be reliably dated: the radiocarbon dates indicated that the pit of the Funnel
Beaker culture in which it was found predated the Baden culture. The incised
pictograph shows a four-wheeled wagon with a rectangular box. The central
draught-pole is also depicted. Another wheel can be seen in the centre which, in
Albert Lanting’s view, was a spare wheel, or a sacred image or object (BAKKER
et al. 1999, 784). The mode of harnessing could also be reconstructed (KRUK –
MILISAUSKAS 1991, Fig. 2). We know that cattle, probably oxen, were harnessed
to heavy carts on which the axle rotated with the wheel, as on the vehicle
appearing on the Bronocice vessel. Other symbols also appear (perhaps denoting
water, trees or buildings). The Bronocice vessel furnished conclusive evidence
that four-wheeled vehicles had appeared well before the rise of the Baden culture
in Europe (KRUK – MILISAUSKAS 1978, 1981, 1982, 1991, Fig. 3; BAKKER et al.
1999, Fig. 7).

23
Other evidence for the use of wagons was unearthed at Flintbek near Kiel in
1989 (ZICH 1992, 1993, 2006), where a 20 m long section of a cart-track consisting
of parallel wheel-ruts was discovered under a megalithic barrow, from which the
gauge of the wagons could be estimated at 1.1–1.2 m. The barrow represented
a funerary monument of the Funnel Beaker culture dating from between 3650–
3400 BC, a date corresponding to the age of the Bronocice site (BAKKER et al.
1999, 784). The recently published calibrated AMS dates gained from charcoal,
bone and other organic samples gave a date of 3460–3385 cal BC for the wheel-
ruts uncovered at Flintbek (MISCHKA 2010, Fig. 52). Doris Mischka claims that
the Flintbek site thus provides the most reliable evidence for the early use of
wheels and wagons.
Remains of a wooden wheel and an axle were discovered near Ljubljana
in 2002. The fi nds were dated to the 4th millennium BC, to the period between
the Retz–Gajary and the Baden cultures. Unfortunately, radiocarbon and
dendrochronological dates were not available at the time the fi nds were published
(VELUŠČEK 2002). The associated pottery suggested a date in the early Baden
period (VELUŠČEK 2006, 44). The dendrochronological and radiocarbon dates
obtained from over 2500 wood samples suggested that the site could be dated
between 3600 and 3332 BC, while the wheel dated from the “second half of the
32nd century or earlier” (ČUFAR et al. 2010, 2031, 2034).
Four wooden wheels were brought to light during the investigation of the
Olzreuter Ried site in Baden-Württemberg, Germany, of which the largest had a
diameter of 58 cm. According to the excavator, the wheels came from an A frame
vehicle used for transporting hay. The samples submitted for dendrochronological
analyses indicated a date around 2897 BC, suggesting that these fi nds represent
the earliest wooden wheels north of the Alps. The fi nds from the site included
the fragment of a miniature clay wheel of the type known from the four-wheeled
clay wagon models of the Carpathian Basin. The date for the wooden wheels
harmonizes with the dating of the miniature clay vehicles which are generally
assigned to the Baden culture (SCHLICHTHERLE 2010). The discovery of the clay
wheel model indicated that the miniature counterparts of genuine wheels were
also made.
Another recent fi nd too confi rmed the familiarity with wheeled vehicles
before the Boleráz period: a stylised cattle fi gurine set on wheels, a curious
combination of a wagon rolling on four solid wheels and the oxen yoked to the

24
wagon (Fig. 2. 1).7 Very little is known about this intriguing model save for the
fact that it was found somewhere in the Ukraine and that it can probably be dated
to the period between 3950 and 3650 BC (CUCUTENI TRYPILLIA, Cat. no. U-102,
263). Similar depicitons are known from other regions too, and their use continued
for a fairly long time, as shown by the four-wheeled vehicles dating from the
turn of the 4th and 3rd millennia reported from Turkmenistan (BOROFFKA 2004,
Abb. 11; Fig. 2. 2) and a two-wheeled cart made around the turn of the 3rd and
2nd millennium BC from Pakistan (BOROFFKA 2004, Abb. 1; Fig. 2. 3). It would
appear that the earliest variant of wagon models is represented by a combination
of wheels and the draught animal.
Regarding the animal depictions associated with wheeled vehicles, mention
must be made of vessels which were previously interpreted as boat models
(MATUSCHIK 2006, 279), but are now seen as wagon depictions. Most of the
small artefacts in this category are fi nds of the Tripolye culture (MATUSCHIK
2006, Fig. 2; Fig. 3). These vessels have an oval body with an animal torso
applied to the vessel’s front. The axles passed through perforations on the front
limbs, while the perforation under the mouth apparently indicated the mode of
harnessing. Three vessels of this type found at Karolina, Nemirov and Rakovec in
the Ukraine have been assigned to the Tripolye B2–C1 period which, according
to the most recent radiocarbon measurements, can be dated to the earlier
4th millennium (MATUSCHIK 2006, 280). A comparable vessel from the earlier
Precucuteni period has recently been published from Târgu Frumos in Romania
(URSULESCU – BOGHIAN – COTIUGĂ 2005, Fig. 12. 1). The interpretation of the
oval, fl at-bottomed object with a cattle head applied to the rim has been left open
(URSULESCU – BOGHIAN – COTIUGĂ 2005, 238). The calibrated radiocarbon dates
for the settlement were 4940–4470 BC and 3700–3600 bc [sic] (2σ). In a later
study, Dumitru Boghian rejected an interpretation as a boat model and proposed
another reconstruction with the two cattle heads applied to the vessel, which thus
represented some sort of vehicle (BOGHIAN 2008–2009, Fig. 3. 2). In his view,
the vessel furnishes early evidence for the secondary exploitation of domesticates
(BOGHIAN 2008–2009, 170).
The date of the appearance and use of wheeled vehicles can thus be pushed
back to ever earlier periods. Evidence for wagons leads as far north as the
Northern Sea and the archaeological record clearly shows that two- and four-
7 The fi gurine was displayed at the exhibition “Cucuteni–Tripolye: A Great Civilisation
of Old Europe” in the Vatican in 2008. Cp. http://scribalterror.blogs.com/scribal_
terror/2008/09/a-cucuteni-tryp.html

25
Fig. 2. Stylised wagon models of the Copper Age. 1. Cucuteni–Tripolye culture
(after http://scribalterror.blogs.com/scribal_terror/2008/09/a-cucuteni-tryp.html),
2. Chanudaro, Pakistan (after BOROFFKA 2004, Fig. 1),
3. Altyn Depe, Turkmenistan (after http://www.hermitagemuseum.org/fcgi-bin/db2www/
quickSearch.mac/gallery?selLang=English&tmCond=waggon&Go.x=0&Go.y=0).

26
wheeled conveyances for transporting goods and four-wheeled wagons were
known across the greater part of Europe from the mid-4th millennium onward.
The wheeled vehicles appearing among the rock engravings in Switzerland,
Germany and Italy, the wooden wheels found in Denmark, Germany, Holland
and Switzerland (WOYTOWITSCH 1995; FEDELE 2006; PÉTREQUIN et al. 2006,
Fig. 3, Fig. 7. 1; LOUWE KOOIJMANS 2006, Figs 4–5; RUOFF 2006, Fig. 1, Fig. 4;
SCHLICHTHERLE 2006, Fig. 1), the wooden wheel and axle discovered in Slovenia
(VELUŠČEK 2002, 2006), a road paved with tree trunks excavated in Holland
(PÉTREQUIN et al. 2006, Fig. 6; LOUWE KOOIJMANS 2006, Figs 7–8), the clay
wheel and wagon models, and the small fi gurines portraying the animals yoked to
a wagon conclusively prove the early use and diffusion of this major innovation
across Europe. An excellent discussion of the importance of wagons and their role
in communication between prehistoric communities written by Stefan Burmeister
appeared recently (BURMEISTER 2011, with an excellent overview of the relevant
archaeological evidence).8
The archaeological record thus provides undisputable evidence that wheels
were known across the greater part of Europe and Anatolia from the earlier
4th millennium BC onward. The combination of wheels and simple conveyances
for transporting goods led to the appearance of A or Y framed transport vehicles,
8 Stefan Burmeister’s study appeared after the closing of my manuscript.
Fig. 3. Stylised wagon models of the Tripolye culture from the Ukraine.
1. Karolina, 2. Nemirov, 3. Rakovec (after MATUSCHIK 2006, Fig. 2).

27
suitable for covering smaller distances. The current state of our knowledge thus
indicates that the birth of wheeled vehicles suitable for longer journeys and for
transporting humans can be dated to the mid-4th millennium BC.
3.2. How to spot a wagon model
Archaeological fi nds of wheeled conveyances can be divided into two main
groups: two- and four-wheeled vehicles. A classifi cation according to wheel types
is also possible (solid or spoked wheels), as is a categorisation based on draught
animals: heavy four-wheeled wagons drawn by one or two oxen or perhaps
donkeys, and two-wheeled carts or rigs and chariots drawn by horses.
Carts, wagons and chariots are inconceivable without wheels; at the same
time, wheels can be accessories of other objects too, not merely of wagons or
carts. While this might seem like stating the obvious, it must certainly be borne
in mind, given the depictions and fi nds of wheeled ploughs, wheeled sledges
and other wheeled conveyances whose use has survived to this day (NADLER
2002. Fig. 1; PÉTREQUIN et al. 2006, Fig. 4; Fig. 4). In Summer 1991, Martin
Fig. 4. Modern-day two-wheeled transport vehicle used in Anatolia
(after NADLER 2002, Fig. 1).

28
Nadler photographed two-wheeled, A-framed carts drawn by oxen used for the
transportation of hay in eastern Turkey, as well as the successive phases of how
these vehicles were made. These two-wheeled carts were only useful for carting
harvested crops or some other produce over short distances. Four-wheeled
vehicles enabled travel and transportation across greater distances, being suitable
for the transportation of people, crops and commodities alike.
While the defi nition of carts and wagons seems straightforward enough, the
correlation with the archaeological evidence is less so. Finds of genuine wagons
and their remains are rarely problematic, but miniature rectangular artefacts and
clay wheel models are an entirely different matter. If one or more wheels are found
in themselves, we are inclined to immediately associate them with wagons, even
though we should, at the most, conceptualise a wheeled conveyance of some sort.
Both genuine wooden wheels and their miniature counterparts in clay could have
been accessories of wagons, ploughs, hay carts or some other wheeled vehicle.
Fettich correctly pointed out that wheels are not the singular attributes of
vehicles because although virtually anything can be set on rollers, contraptions of
this kind do not automatically qualify as vehicles. For example, wheeled urns can
hardly be regarded as vehicles (FETTICH 1969, 31).
The identifi cation of clay wagon models is not as simple as it might seem.
Wheels, as we have seen, are not as obvious accessories as they might appear at
fi rst glance, and neither is a rectangular wagon box. Many rectangular vessels
known from several archaeological cultures fl ourishing from the Neolithic to the
Bronze Age have never been regarded as vehicle models. Even though Fettich
regarded quite a few Neolithic and Bronze Age vessels as representing wagons
(FETTICH 1969, 33–37, 43–48, 51–55, 57–65), his views were never widely
accepted.
What, then, are the criteria for unambiguously identifying a particular artefact
as a wagon model? In my view, the joint occurrence of several technical elements
and a resemblance to genuine wagons offer secure criteria for claiming that a
particular artefact can be interpreted as a wagon model. These elements include a
rectangular wagon box and perforations for the axles, or a rectangular wagon box
and a knob or other protuberance on the underside marking the place of the axles,
or a rectangular wagon box and a symbolic indication of the draught animals, or
any combination of the above elements. Depictions of the wagon box’s wooden
planks, the draught-pole and the yoke and/or harness too can be seen as indicating
wagons.

29
3.3. Late Copper Age wagon models
For a fairly long time, the wagon model from Palaikastro in Greece, the well-
known four-wheeled vehicle from Budakalász (BÓNA 1960, Fig. 3; Fig. 1) and
the rock engraving from Züschen in Germany (BÓNA 1960, 84) represented the
sole evidence for the use of wagons in prehistoric Europe. The two models and
the rock engraving were believed to be roughly contemporaneous or, to be more
precise, the Budakalász model, recovered from a chronologically secure context,
was used for dating the other two fi nds. All three were dated between 2200 and
1800 BC, the generally accepted absolute dates for the Baden culture at the
time.
The advances made in archaeological dating techniques have called for
a serious re-assessment and refi nement of the conventional archaeological
chronologies. The so-called short chronology, constructed from correlations with
Egyptian king lists and Mesopotamian written sources, as well as typological
similarities between vessel forms occurring both in the Carpathian Basin and in
the Ancient Near East, was replaced by the radiocarbon-based long chronology
which, however, gave consistently earlier dates by about a millennium. The gap
between the two systems has still not been reassuringly bridged and remains the
subject of heated debates. While not going into the details of this debate, suffi ce
it here to mention that the currently accepted date for the Late Copper Age in
the Carpathian Basin and the neighbouring regions is between 3600/3500 and
3000/2800 BC, a period marked by the fl ourishing of the Baden culture or the
Baden complex in this region. Let us now review the wagon models of this 500–
700 years long period from the region.
The largest, virtually fully excavated cemetery of the Baden culture at
Budakalász yielded two wagon models: the well-known piece from Grave
177 (SOPRONI 1954, Pl. 7; BONDÁR 2009, Pl. LXXIX, 177/3; Fig. 5) and an
all but forgotten specimen from Grave 158 (SOPRONI 1954, Pl. 6. 5; BONDÁR
2009, Pl. LXVI. 158/2; Fig. 6). Although Soproni had published the latter piece
(SOPRONI 1954, Pl. 6. 5), his study was rarely quoted (the few exceptions being
BÓNA 1960; FOLTINY 1959; FETTICH 1969; KOREK 1973).9 Similarly to the wagon
model from Grave 177, this piece was also a handled vessel painted red on the
9 Gábor Ilon can be credited with rediscovering and thus rescuing Fettich’s study from
oblivion (ILON 2001).

30
Fig. 5. Copper Age wagon model from Grave 177 of the Budakalász cemetery
(drawing by László Gucsi).

31
Fig. 6. Copper Age wagon model from Grave 158 of the Budakalász cemetery
(drawing by László Gucsi).

32
exterior and interior. However, in contrast to the model from Grave 177, the latter
is plain, lacks wheels and has four small knobs on the underside for the axles.
The next Late Copper Age miniature wagon came to light in 1972, twenty years
after the discovery of the Budakalász model, from a grave of the Baden culture in
Szigetszentmárton (KALICZ 1976, Fig. 3; KALICZ 1976a, Abb. 2; Fig. 15. 2).
A model with animal head protomes from Radošina in Slovakia was the next
major fi nd (NĔMEJCOVÁ-PAVÚKOVÁ – BÁRTA 1977, Abb. 7; Fig. 7, Fig. 8. 1a–b).10
The Radošina model furnished evidence that the use of wheeled vehicles in Europe
pre-dated the Baden culture: the fi nds from the settlement could be assigned to the
Boleráz group, indicating that these communities were familiar with wagons. The
importance of the Radošina model lies not only in that it pushed the back the date
for the early use of wagons, but also in its divergence from the earlier models:
the draught animals were also depicted on the model’s front side. According to
Viera Němejcová-Pavúková and Juráj Bárta, however, the protomes on the wagon
portray dogs, rams or bears (NĔMEJCOVÁ-PAVÚKOVÁ – BÁRTA 1977, 443).
The next wagon model came to light in 1982 at Boglárlelle (ECSEDY 1982,
Fig. 8; HONTI – KÖLTŐ – NÉMETH 1988, Pl. II. 1–2; Fig. 8. 2a–b). Dating from
the Boleráz period, this wagon model too portrays the draught animals (BONDÁR
2004, Fig. 3; Fig. 9).11 Yet another wagon model is known from Pilismarót-
Basaharc, a burial ground of the Boleráz group (BONDÁR 1990, Fig. 7. 3; Fig.
8. 3a–c). It must here be noted that István Torma, who excavated the site, does
not regard this artefact as a wagon model.
The inventory of Boleráz wagon models was enriched by two specimens
from Austria: one came to light at Mödling-Jennyberg (RUTTKAY 1995, Abb. 7. 3,
BONDÁR 2004, Fig. 4. 1; Fig. 10. 1), the other at Plessing-Holzfeld (RUTTKAY
2000, Taf. 5. 63; BONDÁR 2004, Fig. 4. 2; Fig. 10. 2).
I have discussed the wagon models of the Late Copper Age and the Early
Bronze Age in several studies (BONDÁR 1990, 1992, 2004, 2006; BONDÁR –
SZÉKELY 2011; BONDÁR 2012), with a broader overview of the wagon models of
the Late Copper Age in the publication of a fi nd from Balatonberény (BONDÁR
2004, Fig. 6; Fig. 11). Recent fi nds of wagon models include a Late Copper
10 Nĕmejcová-Pavúková fi rst published the wagon model in the conference volume on
the Baden culture. It was described as a “wagenförmiges Gefäß, vierkantig, mit zwei
plastischen Tierfi guren” in the section on unusual fi nds (NĔMEJCOVÁ-PAVÚKOVÁ 1973,
299, Abb. 3).
11 I would here like to thank Sándor Ősi (Archaeological Institute of the Hungarian
Academy of Sciences) for the excellent drawing.

33
Age piece from Moha, dating from the Boleráz period (KOVÁCS 2006, Abb. 1;
Fig. 12), and the fragments of three wagon models and a wheel from Esztergom-
Szentkirály, dating from the classical Baden period (KÖVECSES VARGA 2010;
Fig. 13).12
12 Only a single copy of the volume has been published to date. An electronic copy of the
article was kindly provided by Edit Tari, who edited the volume. I would here like to
thank her for her kind permission to use the illustration.
Fig. 7. Copper Age wagon model from Radošina (after the cover photo of the volume
“Symposium über die Entstehung und Chronologie der Badener Kultur”.
Ed. B. Chropovský. Bratislava 1973).

34
Fig. 8. Copper Age wagon models. 1a-b. Radošina (after NĚMEJCOVÁ-PAVÚKOVÁ –
BÁRTA 1977, Abb. 7), 2a-b. Boglárlelle (after ECSEDY 1982, Fig. 8. 9a–b),
3a–c. Pilismarót, Grave 445 (after BONDÁR 1990. Fig. 7. 3a–c).

35
Fig. 9. Copper Age wagon model from Boglárlelle
(after BONDÁR 2004, Fig. 3, drawing by Sándor Ősi).

36
Fig. 10. Copper Age wagon models. 1. Mödling (after RUTTKAY 1995, Abb. 7. 3),
2. Pleissing (after RUTTKAY 2000, Taf. 5. 63).

37
Fig. 11. Copper Age wagon model from Balatonberény
(after BONDÁR 2004, Fig. 6, drawing by Sándor Ősi).

38
Fig. 12. Copper Age wagon model from Moha (after KOVÁCS 2006, Abb. 1).

39
Three new wagon models were discovered during fi eld surveys conducted in
Slovakia. One came to light at Chorvátsky Grob (Magyargurab, Slovakia, FARKAŠ
2010, Fig. 4; Fig. 16. 1), while two were found at Pezinok (Bazin, Slovakia,
FARKAŠ 2010, Figs 2–3; Fig. 16. 2–3).
A new wagon model (Fig. 14) was found recently during the investigation of
an extensive site near Kaposvár-Toponár in County Somogy. It has been dated to
the Boleráz period in view of the associated pottery (BONDÁR 2012, Fig. 1; cp.
Figs 2–3 for the fi nds recovered together with the wagon model).13 The model
brought to light from a settlement pit is one of the earliest of its kind from the
Carpathian Basin.14 The wagon model from Kaposvár can be dated to the Boleráz
period, to the type on which wheels do not appear, although the draught animals
13 I would here like to thank Edith Bárdos for kindly permitting the publication of the
wagon model.
14 Although the clay wheel model from Szombathely predates the wagon models, there is
no way of establishing whether it was part of a wagon model or a wheeled plough.
Fig. 13. Copper Age wagon models from Esztergom
(after KÖVECSES VARGA 2010, Figs 14–15).

40
Fig. 14. Copper Age wagon model from Kaposvár (photo by Sándor Ősi).

41
Fig. 15. Copper Age wagon models. 1. Tepe Gawra (after LITTAUER – CROUWEL 1974,
Fig. 2), 2. Szigetszentmárton (after KALICZ 1976, Abb. 3), 3. unprovenanced,
from Anatolia (after LITTAUER – CROUWEL 2002, Pl. 165b), 4. unprovenanced,
from Anatolia (after LITTAUER – CROUWEL 2002, Pl. 159c).

42
Fig. 16. Copper Age wagon models. 1. Chorvátsky grob (after FARKAŠ 2010, Fig. 4),
2–3. Pezinok (after FARKAŠ 2010, Figs 2–3).

43
putatively yoked to the wagon are symbolically portrayed on the front side.
Unfortunately, the animal heads broke off and have not survived.
3.4. Discussion
The currently known Copper Age wagon models can be dated to the early
(Boleráz) and classical period of the Baden culture. No fi nds of this type are
known from the culture’s late period, although a miniature clay wheel found at
Ózd-Kőaljatető, a site of the Piliny group (BANNER 1956, Taf. 75. 8), refl ects the
continued use of wagons.15 A clay wheel has been published from Ţebea (Cebe,
Romania), a site of the Late Copper Age Coţofeni culture, dated to the Coţofeni III
period (ROMAN 1977, Pl. 52. 40). More recently, the fragment of a wagon model
came to light at Bădăcin (Szilágybadacsony, Romania, BĂCUEŢ 1998, Pl. 1). No
wagon models are known from the Kostolac culture, although there has been a
recent proposal to date the vehicle model from Szelevény to the Kostolac culture
in view of an analogous fi nd from the same period found at Gomolava (HORVÁTH
2009, 133; HORVÁTH 2011a, 229). However, the date and function of this model
remains uncertain for the time being. A clay wagon model has been reported
from the eponymous site of the Vučedol culture in Croatia, which according to
some prehistorians should be assigned to the Copper Age (DURMAN 1988, 19, 47,
Cat. no. 24, sadly, without a photo). Quoting Durman’s personal communication,
Lanting mentions another wagon model of the Vučedol culture from Borinci in
Croatia (BAKKER et al. 1999, 788). Clay wheels were allegedly also found at the
Vučedol-Várhegy site (BÓNA 1960, 90, quoting SCHMIDT 1945, 103).
It has already been demonstrated that the distribution of the known Late
Copper Age wagon models shows a concentration in the central regions of the
Carpathian Basin (BONDÁR 2004, Fig. 15; Fig. 19). Several pieces are known
from Counties Pest, Komárom-Esztergom and Somogy, while not a single piece
has yet been published from the Great Hungarian Plain or northern Hungary.
Most of the clay wagon models can be assigned to the Boleráz period (BONDÁR
2004, 15). Eleven of the eighteen currently known models date from the Boleráz
period, namely the pieces from Balatonberény (Fig. 11), Boglárlelle (Fig. 8. 2a–b,
15 Bóna mentioned the miniature wheel from Ózd-Kőaljatető among the fi nds of the
Hatvan culture (BÓNA 1960, 92). Its dating to the Late Copper Age (based on Banner’s
study) was proposed again in 1999 when Professor Albert Lanting enquired about new
wagon models (such as the one from Börzönce) while collecting data for the study to
be published in Antiquity (BAKKER et al. 1999).

44
Fig. 9), Kaposvár (Fig. 14), Moha (Fig. 12), Mödling (Fig. 10. 1), Pilismarót
(Fig. 8. 3a–c), Plessing (Fig. 10. 2), Radošina (Fig. 7, Fig. 8, 1a–b), Chorvátsky
Grob (Fig. 16. 1) and Pezinok (Fig. 16. 2–3). while six from the classical Baden
period: the specimens from Budakalász (Grave 158: Fig. 6, Grave 177: Fig. 5),
Szigetszentmárton (Fig. 15. 2) and Esztergom (Fig. 13. 1–3). The fragment from
Bădăcin can be assigned to the Coţofeni culture.
Two main groups can be distinguished among the wagon models listed above:
the fi rst comprises the pieces on which wheels/axles are marked (Balatonberény,
Budakalász, Graves 158 and 177, Esztergom, Kaposvár, Moha, Szigetszentmárton
and Pezinok), the second, the rectangular vessels resembling wagons (Radošina,
Boglárlelle, Pilismarót, Mödling, Pleissing, Chorvátsky Grob and Pezinok).
Let us fi rst examine the clay wagon models with fl attish disc wheels/axles, on
which wheels and axles were depicted in two different ways. The wheels of the
wagon model from Grave 177 of the Budakalász cemetery were fl at discs which
survived in a fragmentary condition (Fig. 5). The miniature wagon was set on its
wheels when it was deposited in the symbolic burial. The two wagon models from
Esztergom-Szentkirály (Fig. 13. 2–3) resemble the piece from Grave 177 of the
Budakalász burial ground. The use of separate wheels is indicated by the rounded
handle-like knobs for the axles on the Balatonberény model (Fig. 11) and the
wagon model from Moha has similar handle-like loops for the axles (Fig. 12).
The Kaposvár wagon is set on four small knobs (Fig. 14), similarly to the
vessel from Grave 158 of the Budakalász cemetery (Fig. 6) and one of the pieces
from Esztergom (Fig. 13. 1).
Instead of disc shaped wheels, the wagon model from Szigetszentmárton has
fl at wheels drawn out from the two ends of the roller-like cylindrical axles on
which the attachment of the wheel is indicated with a fl attened knob in the centre
(Fig. 15. 2), as on the piece from Budakalász. The wheels of the Szigetszentmárton
model differ from those of the miniature wagons from Esztergom and from Grave
177 of the Budakalász cemetery. It is quite obvious that instead of the solid,
independent wheels encountered on other models, the rectangular wagon box was
set on two longish rollers whose ends terminated in wheels.
The combination of wheels and axles resulted in the creation of rollers onto
which a rectangular wagon box was set. A conveyance of this type would not have
been too practical or particularly durable in the case of real-life wagons. However,
there is a general consensus among prehistorians that the wagon models of the
Late Copper Age were part of the paraphernalia used in various rituals and thus
the separate wagon box and the combination of axles and wheels underneath was

45
no more than a simple and ingenious way of indicating the elements embodied
by the model.
A similar technical solution appears on a wagon model from Tepe Gawra
depicting a covered wagon box set on an axle provided with wheels (BONDÁR
2004, Fig. 13. 4; Fig. 15. 1) and on an unprovenanced bronze wagon model from
Anatolia (BONDÁR 2004, Fig. 14. 2b; Fig. 15. 3) which likewise has the wagon
box set on two axles with wheels. A similar technical solution appears on the
underside of another unprovenanced Anatolian wagon model (BONDÁR 2004,
Fig. 14. 3b; Fig. 15. 4). Two bronze wagon models from Abamor in south-eastern
Anatolia can be assigned to the same type, on which the wagon box is set on the
axles (KULAKOĞLU 2003, Fig. 2, Fig. 7). These large, 54–55 cm long models shed
much-needed light on the structure of prehistoric wagons, on how the draught-
pole and the axles were fi xed, and how the wheels were attached to the axles. A
third model from the site depicts a covered wagon (KULAKOĞLU 2003, Fig. 1).
The above-quoted models shed light on why axles are not indicated on the
wagon models lacking wheels and they perhaps also illuminate the function of
small, spool-like clay artefacts brought to light on sites of the Boleráz group.
These small artefacts were either simply neglected in the site reports or described
as accessories of spinning and weaving. More recently, a possible connection has
been proposed between wagon models and these spool-like artefacts, namely that
these small artefact perhaps represented roller-like wheels for wagon models.16
The joint occurrence of wagon models and spools has been reported from several
sites, for example from the burial grounds excavated at Pilismarót-Basaharc
and Budakalász in Hungary, and the sites at Mödling-Jennyberg and Plessing in
Austria, again suggesting that an association between wagon models and spools
should be considered. Assuming that the wagon models from Szigetszentmárton
and Anatolia depict one possible manner in which wheels were attached to
wagons, the possible function of the hitherto neglected spools can be set in a new
perspective. Obviously, this calls for a rigorous re-examination of these fi nds in
order to determine whether they had indeed been roller-like wheels.
It is also possible that some clay wagon models had been fi tted with wooden
axles and wooden wheels, or that the clay wagon box had been set into a wooden
frame with wheels.
16 For a detailed study on the possible function of spools, cp. BONDÁR in print. The
possible functions of these spool-like artefacts have been recently reviewed by Tünde
Horváth (HORVÁTH 2011, 40).

46
In the case of some models, such as pieces from Radošina (Fig. 7,
Fig. 8. 1a–b), Boglárlelle (Fig. 8. 2a–b, Fig. 9), Kaposvár (Fig. 14) and Moha
(Fig. 12), the portrayal of the draught animals is the sole indication that the
artefact depicted a wagon. Although neither the wheels, nor the draught animals
appear on the specimens from Austria (Fig. 10), Pilismarót (Fig. 8. 3) and
Slovakia (Fig. 16. 1–3), their size and the analogies to the rectangular vessels
suggest that they too can be regarded as wagon models. Assuming that several
traditions existed for depicting wheels, these pieces may perhaps also be
regarded as miniature vehicles.
The Late Copper Age wagon models have a rectangular wagon box with
trapezoidal sides (the top being longer than the bottom) and an open top. The
differences in their ornamentations and their rim forms suggest that genuine
wagons too were made from different materials using diverse techniques. At fi rst,
the clay models and practical considerations both aided the reconstruction of the
materials and techniques used for making real wagons. The many wooden fi nds
discovered in the meantime have furnished incontestable proof that the various
components such as the wagon box, the axles and the wheels had been made
from wood. While the axle and the wheels rotating with the axle had been made
from planks, a much wider range of materials were probably employed for the
wagon box such as wood (planks of varying length), wickerwork reinforced by
rods, or a combination of the two. It is also possible that the sides of the wagon
box had been assembled from smaller mud bricks and a combination of wood and
wickerwork.
A closer look at the wagon boxes of the Boleráz and Baden period reveals
several differences between them. Most wagon models of the Boleráz period
have a wagon box with a straight fl oor without any indication of axles or wheels
(Boglárlelle: Fig. 8. 2a–b, Fig. 9, Mödling: Fig. 10. 1, Pilismarót: Fig. 8. 3a–c,
Plessing: Fig. 10. 2, and Radošina: Fig. 7, Fig. 8. 1a–b). The structural elements
holding the axles are marked on two pieces (Balatonberény: Fig. 11, and Moha:
Fig. 12). It seems likely that the piece from Kaposvár (Fig. 14) and one of the
Pezinok (Fig. 16. 2) models can be assigned to this type too, judging from the
broken knobs on the underside. The wagon models from the classical Baden period
all have the axles and the wheels marked in some manner. The handled wagon
model from Grave 177 of the Budakalász cemetery (Fig. 5) depicts a wagon
whose lower part had been constructed from planks, indicated by the incised
lines. The axles for the wheels are marked by incised lines. The pieces from
Esztergom are similar (Fig. 13. 1–2), the only difference being that the axles are

47
represented by small ribs. The wagon model from Grave 158 of the Budakalász
cemetery is set on four small knobs (Fig. 6), perhaps a symbolic indication of
the axles. One of the wagon models from Esztergom can be assigned to this type
too (Fig. 13. 3). The axles are represented by two small cylinders with separately
applied wheels on the Szigetszentmárton model (Fig. 15. 2). Evidence for how
the axles and the wheels were fi tted to genuine wagons is provided by the wooden
wheel and axle discovered near Ljubljana (VELUŠČEK 2006, Fig. 3, Fig. 5).
The decoration of the wagon boxes on the models from the Boleráz period
varies. Most bear an incised zig-zag pattern arranged in several rows: Boglárlelle
(Fig. 8. 2a–b, Fig. 9), Mödling (Fig. 10. 1), Pleissing (Fig. 10. 2), Balatonberény
(Fig. 11) and Pezinok (Fig. 16. 3). The piece from Kaposvár (Fig. 14) has short
lines arranged in three rows, similarly to the fragment from Chorvátsky Grob
(Fig. 16. 1), while the wagon model from Moha is adorned with an elaborate
design of square, triangular and trapezoidal fi elds fi lled with hatching (Fig. 12),
as is the fragment from Pezinok (Fig. 16. 2). The protome from Radošina is
decorated with three rows of punctates under the rim (Fig. 7, Fig. 8. 1a–b). The
wagon model from Pilismarót-Basaharc is plain (Fig. 8. 3a–c). The wagon models
of the classical Baden period too are decorated in the most diverse manner, the
only plain piece being the wagon model set on four knobs from Grave 158 of
the Budakalász cemetery (Fig. 6). An incised zig-zag pattern adorns the piece
from Grave 177 (Fig. 5) and the model from Szigetszentmárton under its rim
(Fig. 15. 2). The latter has a zig-zag pattern and incised ladder motifs at the
junction of the sides, and a similar pattern can be seen on one of the pieces from
Esztergom (Fig. 13. 2). The other wagon model from Esztergom bears an incised
zig-zag pattern (Fig. 13. 1a–b).
The structure of the Radošina model differs from that of the other miniature
wagons in that its front is curved (Fig. 7, Fig. 8. 1a–b), it lacks wheels and it has
two animal heads applied to the front. An unprovenanced copper wagon model
of the Alacahüyük culture depicting a wagon box with a similar front side resting
on the axles (NAGEL 1992, Abb. 8; Fig. 18. 1) provides details for the better
understanding of the structure of the Radošina model.
The rim of the wagon boxes on the models of the Boleráz period varies
signifi cantly. The wagon models from Boglárlelle, Mödling, Plessing and Moha
have peaked rims, resembling the one from Kaposvár, while the wagon box of the
model from Balatonberény has a straight rim. The wagon models of the period
have curved sides rising into peaked corners (Budakalász, Szigetszentmárton,
and the fragments from Esztergom were reconstructed as having similar sides).

48
The draught animals yoked to the wagon appear as applied ornaments on
four miniature wagons of the Boleráz period: Radošina (Fig. 7, Fig. 8. 1a–b),
Boglárlelle (Fig. 8. 2a–b, Fig. 9), Moha (Fig. 12) and Kaposvár (Fig. 14).
Unfortunately, the fragments from Mödling (Fig. 10. 1), Pleissing (Fig. 10. 2),
Balatonberény (Fig. 11), Pilismarót (Fig. 8. 3a–c), Pezinok (Fig. 16. 2–3) and
Chorvátsky Grob (Fig. 16. 1) are unsuitable for establishing whether their front
side had been adorned with protomes.
One shared trait of the wagon models of the classical Baden period is the large
handle rising above the rim on the short side, which perhaps symbolises the way
in which the draught animals were harnessed to the wagon (LITTAUER – CROUWEL
1996, Fig. 2; Fig. 18. 2). This interpretation is based on a chariot depiction
from Kültepe in central Anatolia, dating from the early 2nd millennium BC. The
cylinder seal bears a depiction of a rectangular chariot with two spoked wheels
and its driver. The two horses were harnessed to the draught pole attached to the
base of the box, with the halters attached to the horses’ mouth curving back into
the hands of the charioteer. The handled vessels are perhaps a stylised rendering
of this mode of harnessing.
3.5. Late Copper Age zoomorphic depictions
The new chronological data on the early use of wheeled vehicles shed fresh light
on certain animal depictions. The fragment of two animals joined by a bar across
their neck found at Krežnica-Jara near Lublin in Poland (Fig. 17. 6) has since
long been known (FILIP 1966, 643). Although Marin Dinu had noted already in
1981 that the fi gurine could be perhaps be linked to wagon models, this proposal
received little attention at the time (DINU 1981, Fig. 9. 1; VOSTEEN 1999, Taf.
CVII. 62; BONDÁR 2004, Fig. 8. 2). A closer look at the fi gurines makes it quite
obvious that the two animals had been used for traction: laid across their neck is
a withers yoke necessary for harnessing. Similarly to the renowned pot with the
wagon engraving from Bronocice, the fi gurines can be assigned to the Funnel
Beaker culture. Comparable metal fi gurines came to light at Bytýn near Poznań,
also in Poland, in the late 19th century (ŠTURMS 1955, 23. Abb. 1. 4; VOSTEEN
1999, Taf. CVII. 61; BONDÁR 2004, Fig. 8. 4; Fig. 17. 8). The animals have a collar
around their neck and the yoke to which they were harnessed is laid across their
napes. One of the fi gurines has a perforation on the body, probably an indication
that the two animals had been joined to each other. Another pair of joined animals
cast from copper came to light at Dieburg in Germany (MATUSCHIK 2006, Fig.

49
8. 1; Fig. 17. 4), while a copper fi gurine portraying an ox with the yoke laid
across its neck, whose body was similarly perforated, was discovered in Lisková
Cave in northern Slovakia (STRUHÁR 1999, Tab. II. 10; BONDÁR 2004, Fig. 8. 5;
STRUHÁR – SOJÁK 2009, Fig. 7; Fig. 17. 7). The perforation of the body most
likely marks the place of the bar whereby the yoked animals were attached to the
draught-pole.
Cattle could be yoked in one of three ways, by a yoke placed on the forehead,
the horns or the neck (GANDERT 1966; RUOFF 2006, Fig. 8; PÉTREQUIN –
PÉTREQUIN – BAILLY 2006, Fig. 3; Fig. 17. 1–3). These variations appear on
Copper Age animal fi gurines: the pair of animals from Kreżnica (Fig. 17. 6) and
the pair from Lisková Cave (Fig. 17. 7) were harnessed by a yoke placed on their
horns, while the Bytýn fi gurines have a neck yoke (Fig. 17. 8) as shown by the
double ring around their neck. Yet another variant is illustrated by the bronze
animal fi gurines from Abamor in south-eastern Anatolia which were harnessed
by means of a yoke placed on their back behind the forelegs (KULAKOĞLU 2003,
Fig. 9; Fig. 17. 5).
One obvious question is whether the animal team was perhaps harnessed
to a plough in view of the visual representations of ploughing performed with
animals (BALASSA 1973, Fig. 17; BASSI – FORNI 1988, 8–11; GIMBUTAS 1991,
10–14; FORNI 2002). The fi gurines from Poland and Slovakia do not provide a
conclusive answer. The fi gurines from Abamor, however, clearly depict a pair of
oxen harnessed to a wagon (KULAKOĞLU 2003, Fig. 9; Fig. 17. 5), suggesting
that similar fi gurines can perhaps likewise be associated with wagons.
A fragment resembling the animal heads on the Boglárlelle wagon model has
been published from Balatonőszöd (HORVÁTH 2010, 19, Abb. 7. 1; HORVÁTH
2010a, Fig. 10. 3). In Horváth’s interpretation, the animal head was a protome,
either from a miniature wagon or from an amphora. However, actual animal heads
have only survived on the Radošina wagon and it is therefore uncertain whether
the Balatonőszöd fragment had once adorned a clay wagon or an amphora –
the latter seems more likely to me. A similar vessel is known from Straubing-
Lerchenhaid in Austria, a site of the Stroke Ornamented Pottery culture dating
from an earlier period (EIBL 2009, Taf. 4. 5).
The relevant zoomorphic depictions include animal fi gures attached to the
wagon box and small, free-standing fi gurines, the latter including also draught
animals. The fi rst group is made up of wagon models adorned with two animal
heads (Radošina, Boglárlelle, Moha and Kaposvár). Unfortunately, the animal
protomes generally broke off, only the ones on the Radošina model have survived

50
Fig. 17. Animal fi gurines showing modes of harnessing. 1–3. Reconstruction of
harnessing modes (after PÉTREQUIN – PÉTREQUIN – BAILLY 2006, Fig. 3),
4. Dieburg (after MATUSCHIK 2006, Fig. 8. 1), 5. Abamor (after KULAKOĞLU 2003,
Fig. 9), 6. Krežnica (after DINU 1981), 7. Lisková Cave
(after STRUHÁR 1999, Tab. 2. 10), 8. Bytýn (after ŠTURMS 1955, Abb. 1. 4).

51
Fig. 18. Depictions of harnessing modes. 1. Unprovenanced (after NAGEL 1992, Abb. 8),
2. Kültepe, Karum II (after LITTAUER – CROUWEL 1996, Fig. 2).

52
Fig. 19. Distribution of Copper Age wagon models in the Carpathian Basin
(drawing by Sándor Ősi). 1. Bădăcin, 2. Plessing, 3. Radošina, 4. Mödling,
5. Pilismarót, 6–7. Budakalász, 8. Moha, 9. Szigetszentmárton, 10. Balatonberény,
11. Boglárlelle, 12–14. Esztergom, 15. Kaposvár, 16–17. Pezinok, 18. Chorvátsky Grob.

53
intact. These depict hornless creatures which best resemble sheep (Fig. 7). The
second group falls into the category of circumstantial evidence and comprises
free-standing statuettes cast from copper and bronze, the latter more widespread
in Anatolia and the Ancient Near East. Most of these fi gurines depict fi nely
modelled oxen (e.g. NĔMEJCOVÁ-PAVÚKOVÁ – BÁRTA 1977, Abb. 8; LITTAUER –
CROUWEL 2002, Pl. 159a; BONDÁR 2004, Fig. 14; KULAKOĞLU 2003, Figs 1,
4–5, 8–9, 12).
Few animal fi gurines are known from the Baden culture. Most of these
small, highly stylised statuettes created from clay coils depict sheep (Ózd:
BANNER 1956, Taf. 68. 3–6; Salgótarján-Pécskő: KOREK 1968. 57, Taf. XII. 4,
Taf. XIII. 1–7; Piliny: PATAY 1999, 53, Fig. 7; Stránska: NEVIZÁNSKY 2009;
Lieskovec: MALČEK 2010, Tab. 1–2) or pig (Kánya: BANNER 1956, Taf. 21. 15).
The fi ve animal fi gurines brought to light in the Boleráz cemetery investigated
at Pilismarót-Basaharc stand out from among the other zoomorphic depictions
by their larger size and realistic modelling. One portrays a sheep, while two
others are perhaps depictions of dogs (TORMA 1972, Abb. 11; TORMA 1973, Abb.
5. 2; KALICZ – RACZKY 2002, Fig. 21). In her study on the animal burials of the
Baden culture, Horváth examined various dimensions of the relationship between
prehistoric man and animals (HORVÁTH 2006), with a discussion of the period’s
animal depictions. In her view, the animal fi gurines from Pilismarót portrayed pig
(Grave 364), dog (Grave 359) and sheep (Graves 416 and 418) (HORVÁTH 2006,
126, 128, 129).
Knowing that cattle played an important role in the rituals of the Baden
culture – suffi ce it here to quote the graves containing both human and cattle
burials from Alsónémedi (KOREK 1951, Abb. 1), the cattle burials uncovered
on Baden settlements (KOREK 1984, 24; BONDÁR 2002, 12. note 30; AARHUS –
LAURSEN 2010) and the cattle corpses thrown into pits and wells, the remains of
elaborate rituals (HORVÁTH 2006; 2010; 2010a) – we would expect a rich cattle
imagery. However, the culture’s fi nds belie the assumption made from our present
logic. While the evidence clearly shows that cattle played a remarkably important
role in the life of Late Copper Age communities, interestingly enough, only one
single cattle portrayal has been found to date: an elegant vessel with a bovine
head brought to light at Vác-Liliom Street, which has been interpreted as part of
the paraphernalia associated with the cult of the Great Goddess (KŐVÁRI 2010,
397, Figs 3–7). The beautifully crafted, realistic cattle portrayal is yet another
indication of the cattle cult practiced by the Baden communities, although in
this case, the relic was not associated with death or butchery, but with life. In my

54
view, the vessel was perhaps used during initiation rites and rituals celebrating
rebirth, a ceremony of the type still practiced in India in the 19th century. The
initiate was led into a cow shaped golden receptacle and after re-emerging from
the receptacle, the initiate was regarded as having been reborn. The cow was
one epiphany of the Great Goddess, with the cow symbolising the womb shaped
receptacle, an expression of mythical rebirth (ELIADE 1999, 111–112). Obviously,
this interpretation is no more than speculation, which can be neither proved, nor
disproved for the time being.
Surprisingly enough, cattle were not portrayed either in the form of free-
standing fi gurines or as protomes applied to wagon models by the Late Copper
Age communities.
The few zoomorphic depictions and other surviving relics of animal cults
suggest that different animal species such as sheep, cattle, pig, dogs and even
molluscs were accorded widely differing roles in the daily life, the economy and
the rituals of Late Copper Age communities.
It seems to me that the Late Copper Age wagon models are eloquent testimonies
to how wool sheep, originally domesticated in Mesopotamia, and wagon models
were symbolically linked. Maran has pointed out that wool sheep represented
one of the new trade commodities appearing in the Carpathian Basin during the
4th millennium BC (MARAN 1998, 516). I have already noted the surprising fact
that despite the reverence accorded to cattle by Baden communities, this species
never appears among the draught animals harnessed to wagons. The Radošina
model is the only miniature wagon on which draught animals also appear.
According to Němejcová-Pavúková and Bárta, the creature was a dog, a ram
or a bear (NĔMEJCOVÁ-PAVÚKOVÁ – BÁRTA 1977, 443). It seems unlikely that
the authors had seriously considered either of these three species to have been
a draught animal. To me, the highly stylised protomes on the Radošina model
bear a striking resemblance to wool sheep. A comparison between the head of
modern wool sheep and the portrayal on the Radošina vehicle reveals many
similarities, despite the stylisation of the portrayed creatures. We know that in the
case of simplifi ed depictions, the emphasis was not on a realistic portrayal or the
rendering of fi ner details, but rather on accentuating the most essential traits which
conveyed a clear meaning to the community, leaving no doubt as to what the clay
fi gure embodied. Obviously, the association between wagons and wool sheep is
no more than speculation for the time being, and further studies are necessary for
confi rming or rejecting this suggestion. The examination of animal bones, wool
remains and similar depictions will no doubt furnish further clues. The separation

55
of sheep and goat bones in animal bone samples is diffi cult, and the identifi cation
of the bones of wool sheep is even more diffi cult, if not downright impossible.
The possible survival of wool from the Late Copper Age and the determination of
its place of origin is no more than wishful thinking at present. However, there is
hope that similar animal depictions and wagons will be discovered in the future,
which can perhaps add some substance to this bold idea.17
Mention has been made of the surprising difference between the few known
Late Copper Age animal depictions and the sheep fi gurines from Pilismarót-
Basaharc, which are larger, rather whimsically modelled, clumsy pieces, a far cry
from their real-life counterparts. It seems to me that the reason for this divergence
can be sought in the novelty of the sheep introduced into the Carpathian Basin
in the 4th millennium (MARAN 1998, 516). Originally a new breed appearing in
Mesopotamia, it seems likely that in addition to its wool, a few animals were
also traded to this distant region and it is possible that the potter sculpting the
clumsy fi gurines had reproduced the likeness of the creatures providing the
previously unknown commodity from memory. The legend of the golden fl eece
perhaps preserves reminiscences of how valuable this sheep species was and of
the mystique surrounding it in prehistoric societies. The Radošina protome and
the animal fi gurines from Pilismarót-Basaharc perhaps had a similar meaning,
explaining the association between wagons and an unusual, rare and valuable
commodity such as wool and the species providing this commodity. They may
also shed light on why this association still carried a mystical dimension in the
mid-4th millennium BC. Cattle, a species long known to and exploited by Baden
communities, had an entirely different signifi cance. The slaughtering of cattle
seems to have been part of events associated with more frequent community
gatherings, while miniature vehicles and sheep portrayals, the latter with an added
mythical dimension in my view, were more likely part of the paraphernalia used
during more rarely conducted rituals.
A combination of a wagon and separately modelled, free-standing draught
animals has not yet been brought to light in the Carpathian Basin or in neighbouring
regions. The fi nely crafted copper and bronze animal fi gurines from the Ancient
Near East and Anatolia usually portray oxen. On many sites, these fi gurines were
found together with a wagon model.
Advances in archaeological dating indicate that a familiarity with wheels and
wheeled vehicles can be dated to the earlier 4th millennium in Europe and in
17 It must in all fairness be added that László Bartosiewicz does not agree with my idea.

56
Anatolia. Wheels were not necessarily fi xtures of wagons, but may have been parts
of other wheeled conveyances. The earliest clay vehicle models were probably
the pieces portraying animals combined with wheels, with some variants taking
the form of vessels modelled in the shape of wagons. The clay wagon models
of the Late Copper Age show a concentration in the Carpathian Basin. Major
differences can be noted between the wagon models from the Carpathian Basin
and the miniature vehicles of Mesopotamia and Anatolia.

57
4. Early and Middle Bronze Age
4.1. Miniature wheels
The invention of the wheel was crucial to the use and spread of wheeled vehicles.
However, this ingenious artefact could be attached not only to wagons used for
transporting humans and various commodities, but also to other vehicle types
such as carts used for transporting harvested crops or other produce. At their
simplest, carts were made by mounting a sledge on rollers or wheels, whose
counterparts are still used today owing to their versatility. Wheels may equally
well have been fi xtures of sledges and ploughs, and thus the clay wheel models
found in archaeological contexts do not in themselves imply that they should be
solely associated with wagons.
Miniature wheels were initially believed to have been the fi xtures of wagon
models. While this supposition is doubtless logical, it must be borne in mind
that wheels could have been the accessories of a considerably wider range of
artefacts.
The miniature wheels include decorated pieces from the Copper Age onward
and the corpus of Bronze Age clay wheels too comprises several fi nely ornamented
specimens. The miniature discs/wheels come in different forms and sizes, and it
is often impossible to defi ne their function from a cursory glance. Flat spindle
whorls and genuine wheel models with a hub in their centre for attachment to the
axle are often quite similar. Some prehistorians have claimed that these wheels/
discs were symbols of the Sun, an interpretation that can hardly be dismissed out
of hand. Extreme caution needs to be exercised when determining the one-time
function of miniature wheels/discs because it is often quite uncertain whether a
small artefact identifi ed as a wheel had indeed been one. It seems quite certain
that not all fl at discs had been wheels and that even the pieces which were indeed
modelled after wheels were not always accessories of wagon models. I have not
assembled a list of the known Bronze Age miniature wheels, partly because it
would greatly exceed the scope of a study on wagon models, and partly because
of the uncertainties in their interpretation.
In contrast to the miniature wheels of the Copper Age that have a relevance
for dating the appearance of this innovation and the earliest use of wagons, little
chronological importance can be attached to the wheel fi nds of the Bronze Age
because heavy wagons rolling on four solid wheels had been known and used for

58
over a thousand years by that time. The appearance of spoked wheels signalled
another major advance in vehicle technology, leading to the construction of
lighter wagons.
The corpus of miniature Bronze Age wheels eclipses by far the number
of Copper Age pieces, a reliable indication that wheels were known and used
across an extensive area, and that the symbolism and meaning of their miniature
counterparts probably differed from those of genuine wheels. When assembling the
list of the known Bronze Age wagon models I found that small clay wheels were
produced by virtually each and every Early and Middle Bronze Age culture.
Table 1 shows the incidence of wagon models and wheels in the Early and
Middle Bronze Age cultures of the Carpathian Basin.
Table 1. Wagon models and miniature wheels in Early and Middle Bronze Age cultures.
Culture Number of wagon
models
Miniature
wheels
Vučedol 2 +
Makó – +
Somogyvár–Vinkovci/Glina III 3 +
Nyírség/Nir 1 ?
Bell Beaker – +
Hatvan 6 +
Füzesabony 4 +
Nagyrév 2 +
Kisapostag – ?
Encrusted Pottery – +
Vatya – ?
Ottomány/Otomani 16 +
Gyulavarsánd/Vărşand 5 +
Wietenberg 43 ?
Magyarád/Madarovce – +
Veteřov 1 +
Monteoru 1 ?
Tei 1 ?
Felsőszőcs/Suciu de Sus 1 ?

59
4.2. Wagon models
I have already reviewed the major milestones in the research of Bronze Age wagon
models in the above, and I shall here only concentrate on the major advances in
the study of the miniature wagons from the Carpathian Basin.
In his seminal study on prehistoric wagons, Bóna set up a typological sequence
in which he derived the Gherla/Szamosújvár, Varşand/Gyulavarsánd, Wietenberg
and Novaj models from the Budakalász and Palaikastro models (BÓNA 1960,
Fig. 3; Fig. 1). Bóna’s study was followed by a spate of articles in which the new
wagon models from the Carpathian Basin and the broader region were published
and discussed: Alsóvadász-Várdomb (KALICZ 1968, 154. Taf. 113. 8; Fig. 20. 5),
Sălacea (Szalacs, Romania, ORDENTLICH – CHIDIOŞAN 1975), Pocsaj-Leányvár
(MESTERHÁZY 1976; Fig. 22. 2), Böheimkirchen (Austria, NEUGEBAUER 1979,
Abb. 8. 2; Fig. 31. 1), Nižná Myšľa (Alsómislye, Slovakia, OLEXA 1983, Fig. 1. 7;
OLEXA 1996; JAKAB – OLEXÁ – VLADÁR 1999, Abb. 27. 2; OLEXA 2003, Fig. 11;
OLEXA – PITORÁK 2004, Fig. 2; Fig. 31. 2), Berettyóújfalu-Herpály (MÁTHÉ
1984, Pl. 6. 1a–c; Fig. 21. 1) and Börzönce (BONDÁR 1990; 1992; Fig. 20. 1). In
my discussion of the Börzönce fragment, I focused on the missing links between
the Late Copper Age and the Early Bronze Age, and I also assembled a catalogue
of the Late Copper Age and Bronze Age wagon models known at the time.
In his overview of the Bronze Age tell cultures of Hungary, Bóna devoted a
separate chapter to wagon models and their occurrences is various cultures (BÓNA
1992, 1994).18 He perceived a hiatus between the Late Copper Age and the Bronze
Age regarding the use of wagon models because no models were known at the
time from the late Baden, the Vučedol and the Makó cultures (BÓNA 1994, 73).
The situation has changed since then (BONDÁR 2004, 15): a fragment dating from
the Coţofeni III period was discovered at Bădăcin (Szilágybadacsony, Romania,
BĂCUEŢ 1998. Pl. 1), another has been published from the eponymous site of the
Vučedol culture in Croatia (DURMAN 1988, 19. Cat. no. 24), and the discovery
of another wagon model from the same period has been reported from Borinci
(BAKKER et al. 1999, 788). Bóna noted that undecorated, two-axled wagon
models of the Somogyvár period had been brought to light at two sites only, from
the eastern (Cuciulata/Kucsuláta, Romania) and western (Börzönce, Hungary)
18 Two new wagon models were published in the catalogue, one from Berettyószentmárton
(BRONZEZEIT IN UNGARN Cat. no. 330; LE BEL AGE Cat. no 330), the other from
Vésztő-Mágor (BRONZEZEIT IN UNGARN Cat. no. 425; KOVÁCS 1994, 38; LE BEL A GE
Cat. no. 425).

60
Fig. 20. Bronze Age wagon models. 1. Börzönce (after BONDÁR 1990, Fig. 5. 6),
2. Polgár (photo by Ákos Jurás), 3. Törökszentmiklós (after TÁRNOKI 1999, Pl. 2),
4. unprovenanced (after KOVÁCS 2006, Abb. 4),
5. Alsóvadász (after KALICZ 1968, Taf. CXIII. 2).

61
Fig. 21. Bronze Age wagon models. 1. Berettyóújfalu (after MÁTHÉ 1984,
Pl. 6. 1), 2. Füzesabony (after KOVÁCS 2006, Abb. 3), 3. Vésztő (after KOVÁCS 1994,
Fig. 38), 4. Berettyószentmárton (after LE BEL AGE Cat. no. 330).

62
Fig. 22. Bronze Age wagon models. 1. Novaj (after FETTICH 1969, Pl. V. 1),
2. Pocsaj (after DANI 2005, Fig. 3).

63
boundary of the culture’s distribution, despite the fact that fi nds of miniature clay
wheels would suggest a much higher number of wagon models (BÓNA 1994, 73).
Miniature vehicle models disappeared from Transdanubia with the decline of the
Somogyvár culture; in contrast, the wagons of the Schneckenberg culture were
revived in the Wietenberg culture in Transylvania. The use of miniature wagons
is assumed in the Gyula–Roşia culture of the Hungarian Plain based on the model
dating from the Nyírség II period found at Sanislău/Szaniszló in Romania (BADER
1978, Pl. VII. 15). Bóna regarded this piece as the undecorated prototype of the
wagons known from the Ottomány (Berettyóújfalu-Földvár, Otomani/Ottomány-
Várhegy) and Gyulavarsánd cultures (Vărşand/Gyulavarsánd-Várdomb, Békés,
Vésztő, Pocsaj, Săcuieni/Székelyhíd, Tiream/Terem, Pir/Pér and Sălacea/
Szalacs-Várdomb, the latter site yielding a total of ten wagon models from the
Gyulavarsánd deposits: BÓNA 1994, 74). Bóna believed that clay wagon models
were solely used east of the River Tisza, arguing that the piece from Alsóvadász,
a settlement of the Hatvan culture, had reached the site from the Ottomány
distribution area, similarly to the specimen from Nižná Myšľa in Slovakia, found
in a child burial of the Füzesabony culture.19 Bóna noted that even though several
wheel models had come to light at Füzesabony-Öregdomb, wagon models were
lacking, and he therefore regarded the model from Novaj, a site occupied during
the classical Füzesabony culture, as an import from the late Wietenberg culture
of Transylvania (BÓNA 1994, 74).20 Bóna believed that the high number of wheel
models recovered from Hatvan contexts came from wagon models with a wooden
or wickerwork wagon box, this being the reason for the lack of clay models in
the Hatvan material (BÓNA 1994, 74).21 Bóna also discussed the possible relation
between wagon models and genuine vehicles, noting that the simplifi ed models
provide few clues regarding axle types (fi xed or rotating with the wheel) and the
materials used for constructing wagons (most of which were probably assembled
from planks, although the lattice-like patterns on some models could be interpreted
as wickerwork). None of the known wagon models have a draught pole, and thus
19 This view is no longer tenable because clay wheel models have been found in the
Encrusted Pottery culture cemetery at Bonyhád in Transdanubia (SZABÓ 2009, 48,
KISS 2009, 161, Fig. 2. 1: Type E1).
20 The recently published wagon model from Füzesabony-Öregdomb (KOVÁCS 2006,
Abb. 3; Fig. 21. 2) has convincingly refuted this argument.
21 The publication of the wagon model from Törökszentmiklós-Terehalom has remedied
this lack (TÁRNOKI 1999, Fig. 20. 3).

64
virtually nothing is known about how the draught animals were harnessed (BÓNA
1994, 74).
The corpus of Hungarian wagon models was enriched by a specimen from
Törökszentmiklós-Terehalom (TÁRNOKI 1999, Fig. 20. 3), Polgár-Kenderföldek-
Kiscsőszhalom (RACZKY – ANDERS 2000, Fig. 13; Fig. 20. 2),22 an unprovenanced
piece “from Hungary” (KOVÁCS 2006, Abb. 4; SZATHMÁRI 2007, 22: colour
photo; Fig. 20. 4)23 and a model from Füzesabony-Öregdomb (KOVÁCS 2006,
Abb. 3; Fig. 21. 2).
An inventory of the Middle Bronze Age wheeled vehicle models from
Romania was recently published by Nikolaus Boroffka (BOROFFKA 1994),
soon followed by Christian Schuster’s work, which included additional pieces
(SCHUSTER 1996).
The wagon models from Central Europe were treated by Markus Vosteen
in several studies (VOSTEEN 1996; 1998) and a monograph (VOSTEEN 1999),
in which he covered the ritual role and dating of wagon models, together with a
catalogue containing a detailed description of the models from the Copper Age
to the Iron Age. Vosteen quoted the evidence for the use of wagons in the Late
Neolithic, principally the pictorial evidence provided by rock engravings dating
from between 4000 and 3000 BC (VOSTEEN 1999, 42).
Recent studies on the Bronze Age wagon models of the Carpathian Basin
include a concise summary by Boroffka (BOROFFKA 2004) and the publication of
a new model from Nižná Myšľa (OLEXA – PITORÁK 2004).
The wagon model from Nemesnádudvar
A new type of wagon model made in an entirely different style came to light from
one of the Bronze Age pits excavated at Nemesnádudvar (County Bács-Kiskun)
22 RACZKY – ANDERS 2001, Fig. 13. The wagon model was briefl y mentioned by
Márta Máthé in her excavation report (MÁTHÉ 1991, 13). I am greatly indebted to
my colleague János Dani and to photographer Ákos Jurás for providing an excellent
photograph of the model for this publication.
23 The fi ndspot of the two wagon models was mixed up in Tibor Kovács’s article. The
decorated piece is unprovenanced, while the model with the axle fragment comes from
Füzesabony. I would here like to thank Ildikó Szathmári for her help in clarifying the
provenance of the two models.

65
in 2009 during the excavation conducted by György V. Székely (SZÉKELY 2010,
36).24
The pits of the Early Bronze Age settlement lay scattered among the Sarmatian
pits in the northern part of the excavated area (BONDÁR – SZÉKELY 2011, Fig. 2).
The small oval pit containing the wagon model lay in the northern part of
the investigated area. The clayey brown fi ll of the pit yielded various pottery
fragments and animal bones, as well as the joining fragments of a clay wagon
model. Broken into several pieces, the wagon model lay near the fl oor of the pit,
tilted against the south-western wall (BONDÁR – SZÉKELY 2011, Figs 3–4).
There was nothing to indicate that the pit had a special function or that it had
been a sacrifi cial pit. Smaller pits containing no more than a handful of fi nds or no
fi nds at all, and a few post-holes were found in its immediate vicinity.
The wagon model (Figs 23–25) made from clay tempered with crushed
ceramics was fi red to a brownish-grey colour. The short sides are straight, the
long sides terminate in two handle-like rounded projections. The top of the long
sides is curved; both have a neck-like raised projection in the centre and an onion-
head shaped knob at each end. The model is set on four small cylindrical feet. The
decoration of the two long sides is similar: a pattern of incised parallel chevrons
under the neck-like projection in the middle and a design of parallelly incised
oblique lines on the curved end. Three dotted circles adorn the triangular fi eld
between these two main patterns. One of the short sides has a vertical rib fl anked
by two pairs of three curved ribs, the other short side is divided into eight panels
by vertical and horizontal ribs arranged in a lattice pattern. The ends of the long
sides and the feet had originally been perforated. L. 26.3 cm, greatest W. 14.9 cm,
H. 8.8 cm (with feet), 6.6 cm (without feet). The wheels, the axles and the top of
the neck-like projections did not come to light during the excavation (BONDÁR –
SZÉKELY 2011, Figs 5, 7).
Seeing that the design and the symbolism of the wagon model from
Nemesnádudvar represent an entirely new type among the currently known
miniature vehicles, two main questions had to be addressed in the case of this
model, differing so greatly from the other miniature vehicles: its date and the
possible meaning of its adornment. I fi rst turned to typology (the comparison of
formal and stylistic traits) for determining the date of the wagon model. While
none of the known European, Near Eastern or Asian vehicle models match
exactly the miniature wagon from Nemesnádudvar, the few details shared with
24 For a more detailed discussion of the wagon model, cp. BONDÁR – SZÉKELY 2011.

66
other wagon models indicated that it best resembles the pieces of the Middle
Bronze Age Wietenberg culture.
Similarly to other hand-modelled ritual artefacts, the wagon model from
Nemesnádudvar is a unique creation. While lacking exactly identical parallels,
certain elements do have their counterparts on other wagon models. Unfortunately,
the published wagon models, whether intact or restored, are rarely shown from
all sides in the publications and thus there are few published examples of pieces
whose decoration varies on different sides. Certain decorative elements of the
Nemesnádudvar wagon box are paralleled by the models of the Wietenberg culture
from Derşida and Lechinţa. Analogies to the onion-head shaped projections on
the rim can be quoted from Derşida (Fig. 30. 3), while another wagon model
from the same site has a peaked rim terminating in a bird’s head (Fig. 30. 4). It
is unclear from the published drawing of the latter whether the bird head was set
on the corner or on top of the side. The original position of the animal head on
the fragment from Lechinţa is clear: the short front side was peaked and topped
by two cattle heads (Fig. 30. 1). The rounded “handles” of the Nemesnádudvar
model have their counterparts among the fragments from Derşida (Fig. 28. 5–6),
one of which has similar perforated knobs for the axles (Fig. 28. 3). The side of the
virtually intact piece from Otomani (Ottomány) also has handle-like projections
(Fig. 26. 4). The differing ornamentation of the short sides can be noted on the
wagon model from Pocsaj (Fig. 22. 2), assigned to the Gyulavarsánd culture, and
on a piece from the culture’s eponymous site (Fig. 20. 4).
The analogies to certain elements of the wagon model from Nemesnádudvar
would suggest a date in the Middle Bronze Age. However, the pottery fragments
found together with the wagon model (BONDÁR – SZÉKELY 2011, Fig. 6) and the
interior decorated bowl brought to light from another pit assign the pit and its fi nds
to the Early Bronze Age. The thermoluminescence dating of the wagon model
gave a calendar date of 2420±620 BC, while the dates for two vessel fragments
found in the same pit were 2010±560 and 1670±520 BC respectively. The TL
measurements yielded a date between 2190 and 1450 BC which is consistent with
the TL dates for the other fi nds from the pit (BONDÁR – SZÉKELY 2011, Fig. 8).
This date would correspond to the Ada or Nagyrév cultures in this region during
the Early Bronze Age II–III. However, no wagon models have yet been found in
an Ada context. The corner fragment of a miniature wagon was found in 2005
at Cegléd during the investigation of a Nagyrév settlement (RAJNA 2005, 219),
suggesting that the wagon model from Nemesnádudvar can also be assigned to
the Nagyrév culture.

67
Interpretation of the wagon’s ornamental design
Drapery
Each side of the model bears a different design (Figs 23–25). Although the
patterns on the two long sides appear to be identical at fi rst glance, a closer look
reveals subtle differences in the minor details of the two compositions. The four
corners of the rectangular wagon body end in fl at, perforated “handles” whose
ornamentation is part of the wagon’s overall design. The V shaped incised
pattern resembling a necklace and its continuation on the handles can perhaps be
interpreted as the depiction of a textile drapery swathed over the wagon which
was fastened in the four spots marked by the onion shaped tops. We may assume
that the wagon model covered with the ornate drapery was an important ritual
accessory of ceremonies performed on special occasions.
Combination of human imagery and wagons
The top of the neck-like projections in the middle of the long sides has broken
off and it can no longer be determined whether they ended in human or animal
heads, or were perhaps just simply rounded. The necklace-like pattern recalls the
decoration of Middle Bronze Age fi gurines, such as the ones from Dalj (KOVÁCS
1972, 49, Fig. 4), Cîrna (KOVÁCS 1972, 48, Fig. 2; KALOGEROPOULUS 2007, Pl.
LXVII. a–b), Vattina (PRAISTORIJA JUGOSLAVENSKIH ZEMALJA IV. Pl. 82. 1),
Vinča (KOVÁCS 1972, 48, Fig. 1), Vršac (PRAISTORIJA JUGOSLAVENSKIH ZEMALJA
IV, Pl. 84. 2, 2a), as well as an unprovenanced piece from the Lower Danube
region (KOVÁCS 1972, 49, Fig. 3) and Satulung-Finteuşul Mic (DUMITRESCU
1974, Fig. 402. 1; DIETRICH 2010, Taf. 2. 1). The lavishly ornamented collar-like
garment (?) appears slightly earlier. The human fi gurines of the Early Bronze Age
Hatvan culture have rounded shoulders and a bent-back or slightly peaked head.
These fi gurines are portrayed wearing a necklace-like adornment and their body is
covered with some sort of clothing, usually depicted in a highly stylised manner,
as on the piece from Szurdokpüspöki (KOVÁCS 1977, Figs 8–9). The fi gurine
of the Nir (Nyírség) culture from Berea in Romania bears a similar decoration
(BADER 1978, Pl. 8. 7).
There is a striking difference in the decoration of the two short sides. These
sides are adorned with impressed patterns whose style contrasts noticeably with
the delicate, lime-encrusted design on the two long sides. The decorative motifs
adorning the wagon model had most likely been vested with some obvious meaning

68
Fig. 23. Bronze Age wagon model from Nemesnádudvar (drawing by Ágnes Vida).

69
Fig. 24. Bronze Age wagon model from Nemesnádudvar
(photo by Béla Kiss, computer graphics by Sándor Ősi).

70
Fig. 25. Bronze Age wagon model from Nemesnádudvar (photo by Béla Kiss).

71
for the community which had made and used the model. The axles passed through
the small perforated knobs on the underside of the wagon box. The “handles” at
the four corners are likewise perforated, suggesting that the wagon had perhaps
been suspended (in which case the emphasis was not on the artefact’s function as
a wagon). Another possible interpretation is that the perforations indicated how
the draught animals were harnessed to the wagon.
It seems to me that the wagon model from Nemesnádudvar blends the
symbolism of wagons and fi gurines. The possible meaning of this symbolism is all
the more diffi cult to understand because the top of the neck-like projections broke
off and we do not know whether they had been surmounted by a human or animal
head, or whether they had a plain rounded tip. In my view, an anthropomorphic top
seems more likely in view of the necklace-like design underneath. The depiction
of a human fi gure on the wagon can be likened to the charioteer on the war chariot
depictions of later ages, or to a human or divine passenger riding in the wagon,
as portrayed on Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Hittite and Greek pieces (CASKEY
1978, Fig. 23; HAYDEN 1991, Fig. 11. 36; NASHEF 1992, Fig. 18; CAUBET 2000,
219). The possible depiction of a charioteer or, in this case, of a wagoner can
probably be discarded because the “anthropomorphic” sides are represented by
the wagon’s long sides, while the wheels were fi tted to the axles passing under the
short sides, meaning that the wagon was driven with the short side forward and
thus the possible portrayal of a wagoner would only make sense on the short side.
In this case, the anthropomorphic topping on the projections may have indicated
the human or divine person riding in the wagon.
4.3. Discussion
The absolute chronology of Early and Middle Bronze Age cultures is perhaps
even more complicated than the dating of the Copper Age. The periodisation
introduced by Paul Reinecke is the perhaps best-known and most widely used
framework in the Carpathian Basin, even though its main divisions can no
longer be correlated with the entire span of the Bronze Age. Reinecke’s scheme
was refi ned by the chronology based on the layer sequence of the Tószeg tell
settlement, and by the subdivisions proposed Amália Mozsolics, István Bóna and
later generations of prehistorians. Another problem stems from the many diverse
correlations between the accepted time-scale of the Hungarian Bronze Age and
the chronological schemes used in the neighbouring countries. The reader is

72
referred to the chronological chart (Fig. 36) originally published in the volume
Hungarian Archaeology at the Turn of the Millennium.
The number of clay wagon models from the Early and Middle Bronze Age
cultures of the Carpathian Basin and its broader environment is 89 (without the
miniature wheels). Most come from Romania (63) and Hungary (19), with a few
pieces from Slovakia (2) and former Yugoslavia (4), and a bird shaped, four-
wheeled model from Austria (Diagram 1). This number seems suffi cient for an
examination of whether there is an association between a particular type and a
culture. The distribution of wagon models by archaeological cultures is shown in
Diagram 2.
Two fragments are mentioned from the Vučedol culture, dated to the Late
Copper Age/Early Bronze Age transition. One came to light at Vučedol in 1984,
and according to its description, it is decorated with a herringbone pattern and
short incisions (DURMAN 1988, Cat. no. 24). The other piece, discovered at
Borinci, is known from a brief mention only (BAKKER et al. 1999, 788).
Three models came to light on sites of the Early Bronze Age Somogyvár–
Vinkovci culture and the roughly contemporaneous Glina III culture: the pieces
from Cuciulata (Kucsuláta, Romania, BICHIR 1964, Fig. 1–2; BONDÁR 1990, Fig.
9. 1a–b; Fig. 26. 5) and Börzönce (BONDÁR 1990, Fig. 5; Fig. 20. 1) are both
small, undecorated models, while nothing is known about the piece from Crivăt
(SCHUSTER 1996, 118, note 57).
Diagram 1. Distribution of Bronze Age wagon models in the Carpathian Basin.

73
The only wagon model of the Nir (Nyírség) culture was found at Sanislău in
Romania. The rectangular wagon box is decorated with a design of hatched bands,
while the axles resemble rounded handles (BADER 1978, Pl. 7. 15; SCHUSTER
1996. Pl. 6. 3; Fig. 26. 2).
The six wagon models of the Hatvan culture have different shapes. The piece
from Alsóvadász (KALICZ 1968, Taf. 113. 2; Fig. 20. 5) and an unprovenanced
piece (KOVÁCS 2006, Abb. 4; Fig. 20. 4) have a rectangular wagon box,
while the ones from Polgár (RACZKY – ANDERS 2000, Fig. 13; Fig. 20. 2) and
Törökszentmiklós (TÁRNOKI 1999, Fig. 2, Fig. 20. 3) are conical. A wagon
model from Tószeg is only known from a brief mention (BÓNA 1960, 17),
without any closer details. The models from Alsóvadász and Polgár, as well
as the unprovenanced piece are decorated with bundles of zig-zag lines and
incisions along the edges. The peaked corners broke off and thus their exact form
cannot be reconstructed. The axles passed through the handle-like, perforated
knobs on the underside of the wagon box on the model from Alsóvadász and the
unprovenanced piece, while the perforations are at the ends of two longitudinal
ribs on the specimen from Törökszentmiklós. A plain wagon model came to light
in 2009 at Vatta-Testhalom (known also as Vatta-Dobogó; KOÓS 2009, 379).25
25 I would here like to thank Judit Koós for kindly sending me the photos of the wagon
model and for kindly allowing me to quote this fi nd here.
Diagram 2. Distribution of Bronze Age wagon models according
to archaeological cultures.

74
Two wagon models are known from the Füzesabony culture: one fragmentary
piece comes from Novaj (BÓNA 1960, Abb. 3; FETTICH 1969, Pl. 5. 1; Fig.
22. 1), the other is the recently published piece from Füzesabony (KOVÁCS 2006,
Abb. 3;26 Fig. 21. 2). The fragment from Novaj represents the corner of the wagon
box with peaked corners. An oblique meander runs across the side combined with
two triangles along the corners. The long side is divided by a horizontal band.
The axles passed through rounded knobs on the underside of the wagon box. The
Füzesabony model depicts a rectangular, fl attish wagon whose sides and edges
are framed with hatched bands.
The two wagon models from Nižná Myšľa in Slovakia were assigned to the
late Füzesabony culture. The piece recovered from a child burial has a conical
wagon box bearing a hatched band under the rim, a hatched zig-zag band across
the side and fi ve impressed dots underneath. The rounded corners are similarly
decorated with hatched bands. The base has a zig-zag line on the short side and
incisions on the long side. The axles are represented by perforated ribs with
rounded ends extending beyond the wagon box (OLEXA 1983, Fig. 1. 7; JAKAB –
OLEXÁ – VLADÁR 1999, Abb. 27. 2; Fig. 31. 2). The other wagon, found on
the settlement, is rectangular with rounded sides. The long sides are decorated
with oblique lines. The axles are indicated by ribs with perforated, rounded ends.
A perforated lug handle is set on one corner (OLEXA 2003, Fig. 11; OLEXÁ –
PITORÁK 2004, Fig. 2; Fig. 31. 3).
Until recently, no miniature wagons were known from the Nagyrév culture.
The fi rst fi nd of this type, a small fragment, came to light at Cegléd in 2005
(RAJNA 2005, 219).27 The other piece is represented by the Nemesnádudvar
model (Figs 23–25), which can probably be assigned to this culture.
The sixteen wagon models of the Ottomány culture include both decorated
pieces and plain ones, the latter often found on the same site as the patterned ones.
The wagon model from Otomani (Ottomány, Romania. BICHIR 1964, Fig. 2. 1;
BONDÁR 1990, Fig. 9. 2a–b; SCHUSTER 1996, Pl. 7. 7; Fig. 26. 4) is rectangular,
the corners are peaked and the sides end in handle-like projections. A rib-like
moulding marks the position of the axles. The piece from Sălacea (ORDENTLICH –
CHIDIOŞAN 1975, Pl. 3. 1–4; BONDÁR 1990, Fig. 9. 3a–b; SCHUSTER 1996, Pl.
26 The caption is erroneous because the wagon model was in fact found at Füzesabony-
Öregdomb.
27 I am greatly indebted to András Rajna for showing me the wagon model and for
kindly allowing me to quote it. Thanks are due to Róbert Patay for the photos of this
fragment.

75
7. 9; Fig. 26. 1) is rectangular, the lower corners are curved and perforated, the
axles passed through these handle-like terminals. An undecorated model from
Berettyóújfalu (MÁTHÉ 1984, Pl. 6. 1a–c; Fig. 21. 1) is conical and the axles
too passed through handle-like projections as on the piece from Sălacea. The
decorated models from the site bear diverse patterns. Two unpublished fragments
with perforated upper corners from Berettyóújfalu are described as bearing incised
motifs resembling the Pocsaj model (MÁTHÉ 1984, 148). The specimen from
Otomani is adorned with patterns arranged into bands (ROSKA 1925, Fig. 3. 4;
Fig. 26. 7). Nine of the wagon model fragments from Sălacea are decorated.
The ornamental patterns on these pieces differ, illustrating the extent to which
contemporaneous artefacts from the same site can differ from each other. One
wagon model is adorned with smoothed-in chevron motifs on the long and short
sides, and – as far as can be made out on the published photo – with incised
concentric circles in the interior (ORDENTLICH – CHIDIOŞAN 1975, Pl. 5. 1–4;
SCHUSTER 1996, Pl. 7. 5; Fig. 27. 7). Several wagon models have a rectangular
wagon box with prominently modelled corners (ORDENTLICH – CHIDIOŞAN 1975,
Pl. II. 1–2, Pl. I. 1–3, Pl. II. 3–6, Pl. VI. 1, Pl. VI.2, Pl. VIII.1–2), and some
are decorated with incisions along the rim (ORDENTLICH – CHIDIOŞAN 1975,
Pl. II. 1–2, Pl. II. 3–5, Pl. VIII. 1). One specimen is adorned with zig-zag lines
separated by a straight line on the long sides, and with a triple zig-zag line on
the short sides, with the designs enclosed within an incised frame on the sides
(ORDENTLICH – CHIDIOŞAN 1975, Pl. II. 1–2; SCHUSTER 1996, Pl. 7. 6; Fig.
27. 4). Another piece bears a design of hatched triangles arranged in two rows on
the long and short sides (ORDENTLICH – CHIDIOŞAN 1975, Pl. I. 1–2; SCHUSTER
1996, Pl. 7. 4; Fig. 27. 3), while one specimen is decorated with a bundle of wavy
lines recalling running dog motifs (ORDENTLICH – CHIDIOŞAN 1975, Pl. II. 3–5;
SCHUSTER 1996, Pl. 7. 8; Fig. 27. 5). Resembling the undecorated wagon model,
a rather sparsely ornamented piece has a circle of impressed dots on the long
sides and one corner, and an elongated ellipse of dots with two perforations on
the short sides (ORDENTLICH – CHIDIOŞAN 1975, Pl. IV. 1–2; SCHUSTER 1996, Pl.
7. 10; Fig. 26. 3). The base of the wagon box bears a similar pattern of impressed
dots arranged in an ellipse combined with an arc created from impressed dots
(ORDENTLICH – CHIDIOŞAN 1975, Pl. IV. 4). Another specimen has a decoration
of vertical bands combined with incisions on the sides and along the edges of
the wagon box (ORDENTLICH – CHIDIOŞAN 1975, Pl. VI. 1). Judging from the
blurred photo, one fragment appears to have been decorated with a dense lattice
pattern (ORDENTLICH – CHIDIOŞAN 1975, Pl. VI. 2). Only the peaked upper part

76
Fig. 26. Bronze Age wagon models. 1. Sălacea (after SCHUSTER 1996, Pl. 7. 9),
2. Sanislău (after SCHUSTER 1996. Pl. 6. 3), 3. Sălacea (after SCHUSTER 1996, Pl. 7. 10),
4. Otomani (after SCHUSTER 1996, Pl. 7. 7), 5. Cuciulata (after BICHIR 1964, Figs 1–2),
6, 9. Szamosújvár (after OROSZ 1901, Fig. 111, OROSZ 1904, Fig. 9),
7. Ottomány (after ROSKA 1925, Fig. 3. 4), 8. Algyógy (after ROSKA 1942, Abb. 4. 7).

77
Fig. 27. Bronze Age wagon models. 1. Baraolţ (after SCHUSTER 1996, Pl. 3. 1),
2. Tiream (after SCHUSTER 1996, Pl. 7. 2), 3. Sălacea (after SCHUSTER 1996, Pl. 7. 4),
4. Sălacea (after SCHUSTER 1996, Pl. 7. 6), 5. Sălacea (after SCHUSTER 1996, Pl. 7. 8),
6. Szamosújvár (after SCHUSTER 1996, Pl. 3. 6), 7. Sălacea (after SCHUSTER 1996,
Pl. 7. 5), 8. Săcueni (after SCHUSTER 1996, Pl. 7. 3), 9. Gyulavarsánd (after
DOMONKOS 1908, Pl. II. 6), 10. Voivodeni (after PETICĂ 1981, Abb. 8. 3).

78
Fig. 28. Bronze Age wagon models. 1. Feldioara (after BOROFFKA 1994, Taf. 76. 1),
2. Derşida (after CHIDIOŞAN 1980, Taf. 25. 1), 3. Derşida (after CHIDIOŞAN 1980,
Taf. 25. 3), 4. Feldioara (after BOROFFKA 1994, Taf. 76. 2), 5. Derşida
(after CHIDIOŞAN 1980, Taf. 25. 2), 6. Derşida (after CHIDIOŞAN 1980, Taf. 25. 4),
7. Derşida (after CHIDIOŞAN 1980, Taf. 25. 5), 8. Bistriţa (after DĂNILĂ 1971, Abb. 2. 3).

79
Fig. 29. Bronze Age wagon models. 1. Ciceu Corabia (after BOROFFKA 1994, 168.
Taf. 56. 5), 2. Corpadea (after BOROFFKA 1994, Taf. 63. 9), 3. Cluj (after BOROFFKA
1994, Taf. 62. 7), 4. Braşov (after BOROFFKA 1994, Taf. 19. 5), 5. Aiton (after BOROFFKA
1994, Taf. 1. 5), 6. Sieu (after BOROFFKA 1994, Taf. 127. 4), 7. Boineşti (after SCHUSTER
1996, Pl. 6. 5), 8. Bărboasa (after SCHUSTER 1996, Pl. 5. 1).

80
Fig. 30. Bronze Age wagon models. 1. Lechinţa (after SCHUSTER 1996, Pl. 3. 7),
2. Sighişoara (after SCHUSTER 1996, Pl. 3. 2), 3. Derşida (after CHIDIOŞAN 1980,
Taf. 25. 7), 4. Derşida (after CHIDIOŞAN 1980, Taf. 25. 9), 5. Jigodin (after SZÉKELY
1959, Fig. 2), 6. Ciceu Corabia (after BOROFFKA 1994, Taf. 59. 5).

81
Fig. 31. Bronze Age wagon models. 1. Böheimkirchen
(after SCHAUER 1988–1989, Abb. 5), 2–3. Nižna Myšla (after OLEXA 2003, Fig. 11).

82
survived of another model, from which it is impossible to reconstruct the form of
the wagon box (ORDENTLICH – CHIDIOŞAN 1975, Pl. VI. 3). On several models,
the axles did not pass through handle-like perforated knobs; instead, the corners
of the wagon box had four perforations, meaning that the axles extended across
the box instead of the box being set on the axles (ORDENTLICH – CHIDIOŞAN
1975, Pl. I. 3, Pl. II. 1–2, Pl. IV. 1).28
The wagon model from Săcuieni (Székelyhíd, Romania) has rounded edges
and bears a design of hatched bands under the rim, along the edges, in the centre
and on the underside of the wagon box, combined with a running spiral on one
side. The short sides have two bundles of zig-zag lines (ORDENTLICH – CHIDIOŞAN
1975, Pl. VIII. 1–2; SCHUSTER 1996, Pl. 7. 3; Fig. 27. 8).
The piece from Tiream (Terem, Romania) has a conical wagon box adorned
with a row of hatched lozenges on the long sides. It is unclear from the published
illustration whether the reconstruction was based on an intact or a fragmentary
wagon model. The wheels are asymmetrical; the larger wheel is decorated with
concentric circles (BADER 1978, Pl. 36. 26; SCHUSTER 1996, Pl. 7. 2; Fig. 27.2).
Four almost intact models are known from the Gyulavarsánd culture, each
of which is decorated. The wagon boxes are conical, the axles passed through
lug handle-like perforated knobs set on the underside of the wagon box. The best
known among the culture’s models is the piece from Pocsaj (MESTERHÁZY 1976,
Figs 1–5; DANI 2005, Fig. 3; Fig. 22. 2), decorated with three hatched zig-zag
bands on the long sides and a spoked wheel on the short sides. The wheels are
likewise decorated. The designs on the two long and two short sides differ slightly
regarding minor details, perhaps because of the meaning conveyed by the pattern.
The wagon model from Vésztő (KOVÁCS 1994, Fig. 38; Fig. 21. 3) has a long,
fl attish wagon box adorned with parallel zig-zag motifs and bundles of incised
lines. The specimen from Berettyószentmárton (BRONZEZEIT IN UNGARN Cat. no.
330; Fig. 21. 4) has a wagon box framed with incised lines. The sides of the wagon
box are framed with incised lines, combined with hatched hanging triangles on
the long sides on the model from the eponymous site at Gyulavarsánd (Vărşand,
Romania). The rim is peaked on one of the long sides; however, the tip broke
off and thus it is uncertain whether there was a protome on top or whether it was
simply rounded (DOMONKOS 1908, Pl. II. 6; BÓNA 1960, Abb. 3; ORDENTLICH –
CHIDIOŞAN 1975, Pl. 7, Fig. 27. 9). The short sides bear vertical hatched bands,
whose number differs (FETTICH 1969, Pl. 3. 2b, 2c; ORDENTLICH – CHIDIOŞAN
28 In the lack of a profi le drawing, more precise observation is not possible.

83
1975, Pl. 7. 3). The groove for the axles can be clearly seen on the underside
(FETTICH 1969, Pl. 3. 2e). Bóna mentions a model from Békés among the fi nds of
the Gyulavarsánd culture (BÓNA 1994, 74; this piece appears to have been lost).
The highest number of wagon models, forty-three in all, comes from the
Wietenberg culture. Similarly to the wagon models of the Ottomány culture,
the pieces of the Wietenberg culture represent differing types. Virtually nothing
is known about two unpublished fragments from Oarta de Sus (Felsővárca,
Romania, BOROFFKA 1994, 167). The model found at Bistriţa (Beszterce,
Romania) is mentioned briefl y (BOROFFKA 1994, 167; for a drawing, cp. DĂNILĂ
1971, Abb. 2. 3; Fig. 28. 8). Decorated and plain varieties have both been found,
the latter outnumbering the former. Some sites yielded several models of different
types.29 The plain pieces usually have a rectangular wagon box, as the specimens
from Ciceu Corabia (Csicsóújfalu, Romania, BOROFFKA 1994, 168. Taf. 56. 5;
Fig. 29. 1) and Sighişoara (Segesvár, Romania, HOREDT – SERAPHIN 1971, Abb.
17. 27, Abb. 39. 1–2, 5, 7, 10), while the wagon box of the decorated specimens
ranges from square and rectangular to conical with trapezoidal sides. Judging
from the published drawings and photos, the model from Derşida (Romania,
CHIDIOŞAN 1980, Taf. 25. 2; Fig. 28. 5) and four pieces from Sighişoara
(HOREDT – SERAPHIN 1971, Abb. 39. 6, 9, 13–14) were decorated along the edges
only. The wagon box was framed on the models from Aiton (Ajton, Romania,
BOROFFKA 1994, Taf. 1. 5; Fig. 29. 5), Braşov (Brassó, Romania, BOROFFKA
1994, Taf. 19. 5; Fig. 29. 4), Corpadea (Kolozskorpád, Romania, BOROFFKA 1994,
Taf. 63. 9; Fig.29. 2), Derşida (CHIDIOŞAN 1980, Taf. 25. 4; Fig. 28. 6), Gherla
(Szamosújvár, Romania. OROSZ 1901, Fig. 123, BÓNA 1960, Fig. 3, SCHUSTER
1996, Pl. 3. 6; Fig. 27. 6), Şieu (Árokalja, Romania, BOROFFKA 1994, Taf. 127.
4; Fig. 29. 6) and a fragment from Sighişoara (HOREDT – SERAPHIN 1971, Abb.
39. 16). The sides of the wagon box were sometimes framed with impressed
dots (Aiton, Corpadea), a lattice pattern (Gherla, Sieu) or a zig-zag line (Braşov,
Derşida, Sighişoara). A lattice pattern arranged in vertical bands adorns the sides
of the pieces from Baraolţ (Barót, Romania. SZÉKELY 1988, Fig. 1. 1; SCHUSTER
1996, Pl. 3. 1; Fig. 27.1), Derşida (CHIDIOŞAN 1980, Taf. 25; 1, BOROFFKA
1994, 167; Fig. 28. 2), Feldioara (Földvár, Romania, BOROFFKA 1994, Taf. 76.
2; Fig. 28. 4), the two models from Gherla (OROSZ 1901, Fig. 111; OROSZ 1904,
29 Two pieces from Ciceu Corabia/Csicsóújfalu, seven from Derşida/Kisderzsida, two
from Feldioara/Földvár, three from Gherla/Szamosújvár, two from Oarta de Sus/
Felsővárca and fi fteen from Sighişoara/Segesvár.

84
Fig. 9; Fig. 26. 6, 9)30 and a fragment from Sighişoara (HOREDT – SERAPHIN
1971, Abb. 39. 4). A model from Geoagiu (Algyógy, Romania) has bands fi lled
with impressed dots (ROSKA 1942, Abb. 4. 7; BOROFFKA 1994, 167; Fig. 26. 8).
Some pieces have an elaborate design incorporating spirals (Sighişoara, HOREDT
– SERAPHIN 1971, Abb. 39. 12) and running dog motifs (Feldioara, BOROFFKA
1994, Taf. 76. 1; Fig. 28. 1), and in a few cases, the entire wagon box is covered
with geometric patterns, as on the pieces from Cluj (Kolozsvár, Romania,
BOROFFKA 1994, Taf. 62. 7; Fig. 29. 3), Derşida (CHIDIOŞAN 1980, Taf. 25. 3, 5;
Fig. 28. 3, 7), Sighişoara (HOREDT – SERAPHIN 1971, Abb. 39. 15) and Voivodeni
(Vajdaszentivány, Romania, PETICĂ 1981, Abb. 8. 3; Fig. 27. 10). The axles on
the wagon models of the Wietenberg culture passed through a perforated knob or
lug handle-like rounded terminals on the underside of the wagon box; unlike on
the models of the Ottomány culture, the axles did not pierce the wagon box.
Following a long hiatus from the Copper Age, the portrayal of the animals
yoked to the wagon appears again in the Wietenberg culture.
The only wagon model of the Věteřov culture, a bird shaped decorated
piece, came to light at Böheimkirchen in Austria (NEUGEBAUER 1979, Abb. 8. 2;
SCHAUER 1988–1989, Abb. 5, Fig. 31. 1).
One wagon model is known from the Monteoru culture: the fragment of the
lower corner of the rectangular wagon box came to light at Bărboasa in Romania
(CĂPITANU – FLORESCU 1969, Fig. 7; SCHUSTER 1996, Pl. 5. 1; Fig. 29. 8).
The only wagon model of the Tei culture was found in Bucureşti (SCHUSTER
1996, 118, note 59). The corpus of Middle Bronze Age wagon models includes
also a fragment from Boineşti (Bujánháza, Romania, SCHUSTER 1996, Pl. 6. 5;
Fig. 29. 7), assigned to the Suciu de Sus culture, and an unpublished piece from
Adunaţii Copăceni, mentioned by Schuster (SCHUSTER 1996, 127).31
The above overview of the clay wagon models indicates that some traits,
such as the position of the axles placed under or through the wagon box, the
ornamental motifs echoing pottery ornamentation, decorative techniques, fabric
and manufacturing techniques, are specifi c to a particular culture. At the same
time, it is also quite obvious that the cultural attribution of most wagon models,
each a singular piece, would run into diffi culties if found without a secure context
and associated fi nds. The wagon models of certain cultures include both plain and
30 These two fragments are not identical with the oft-quoted reconstructed wagon model
from Gherla/Szamosújvár.
31 The text contains a reference to an illustration of the piece in Pl. 10, but there is no such
illustration accompanying the article.

85
decorated pieces, and thus we can hardly claim that only plain pieces were used
by some cultures. The current corpus of wagon models would suggest that some
Bronze Age cultures lacked wagon models (the Makó, Bell Beaker, Kisapostag,
Encrusted Pottery, Vatya and Magyarád cultures), while other are characterised
by a scarcity or, conversely, an abundance of vehicle depictions (Ottomány and
Wietenberg cultures). There may be a deeper underlying reason for this, or it
may be mere chance. It must be borne in mind that unusual, remarkable artefacts
such as wheels and wagon models fashioned from clay and metal, and the animal
fi gures attached as protomes, as well as wooden wheels, genuine wagons, wagon
burials, wheel-ruts, paved road remains and the like are most often chance fi nds,
discovered through pure archaeological luck, and thus our knowledge is patchy
to say the least: often, we are dealing with little more than a blurred imprint of
the past from which we attempt to reconstruct the colourful reality that once was.
Thus, instead of sweeping conclusions, we should concentrate on the facts.
4.4. Zoomorphic depictions
Animal depictions which can directly or indirectly be associated with miniature
ceramic vehicle models have already been covered in the section on the wagon
models of the Copper Age. Two main depiction types could be distinguished, the
fi rst made up of stylised animal heads applied to the wagon box, the second of
free-standing animal fi gurines. The pieces from the Carpathian Basin were highly
schematised creatures modelled from clay coils whose species could rarely be
determined, while the fi gurines from the Ancient Near East and Anatolia usually
portrayed cattle, possibly oxen.
A defi nite change occurred in animal cults during the Early Bronze Age in
the Carpathian Basin, marked by the perceptible prominence of birds. Only in the
Middle Bronze Age are depictions of draught animals again encountered among
the known fi nds. The same duality can be noted among these portrayals as in
the Copper Age: the fi nds include both animal heads applied to the wagon box
or its corners, and free-standing fi gurines, principally of birds (SCHAUER 1988–
1989; GUBA – SZEVERÉNYI 2007, covering the relevant fi nds from the Carpathian
Basin).
Following a long hiatus from the Copper Age, the portrayal of the animals
yoked to the wagon appears again in the Wietenberg culture.
A cattle head was applied to the rim of one of the elaborately ornamented short
sides on the fragment from Lechinţa-Mureş (BICHIR 1964, Fig. 4. 3; SCHUSTER

86
1996, Pl. 3. 7; Fig. 30. 1). The stub of two animal heads can be made out on the
short side of the perhaps best-known fragment from Sighişoara (BICHIR 1964,
Fig. 4. 2, SCHUSTER 1996, Pl. 3. 2; Fig. 30. 2).32 An animal head protome, broken
off from the artefact which it had originally adorned, has been published from
Racoş-Piatra-Detunată in Romania (COSTEA – SZÉKELY 2011, Pl. 3. 6). Two
zoomorphic fragments, one from Jigodin (Zsögöd, Romania. BICHIR 1964, 82,
note 86; SZÉKELY 1959, Fig. 2; Fig. 30. 5),33 the other from Derşida (CHIDIOŞAN
1980; Taf. 25. 9, BOROFFKA 1994, 168; Fig. 30. 4), had probably been similar
protomes judging from their style. The original form of another fragment from the
latter site is uncertain: it is impossible to determine from the published drawing
whether it is a corner with an animal head from a wagon box or simply a small
sphere set on it (CHIDIOŞAN 1980, Taf. 25. 7; Fig. 30. 3).
Relics of the bird cult appear in a rich variety during the Middle Bronze Age,
ranging from bird shaped rattles to bird shaped and bird-drawn vehicles, as well
as bird-headed humans and the like. Bird shaped wagons fi rst appeared in the
Wietenberg culture, as shown by the elaborately decorated model found at Ciceu
Corabia (BOROFFKA 1994, Taf. 59. 5; Fig. 30. 6).
Vehicles are sometimes depicted as drawn or borne by waterfowl in the
Middle Bronze Age. The eventful story of the two remarkable chariot models
found at Dupljaja near Belgrade and the many controversial issues surrounding
the two pieces have been recently discussed by Rastko Vasić. One of the models
from Dupljaja is two-wheeled (VASIĆ 2004, Fig. 1), the other is three-wheeled
and is drawn by three birds (VASIĆ 2004, Fig. 2; Fig. 32. 2). A bird-headed fi gure
(VASIĆ 2004, Fig. 1) dressed in a long skirt rides both chariots. The authenticity,
dating and interpretation of the two chariot models have been the subject of
lively debates. Vasić assigned the fi nds to the Middle Bronze Age Žuto Brdo–
Dubovac group. The chariot models from Dupljaja represent the fi rst instance
of the combination of vehicle, bird and human in the archaeological material. A
comparable three-wheeled model drawn by three winged creatures is known from
Brzeżniak in Poland (VOSTEEN 1998, Taf. 132. 226–1 and 226–2; Fig. 32. 1). It
would appear that the number three and the group of three birds had a symbolic
meaning.
32 The stubs of missing animal heads are not shown on Bóna’s illustration (BÓNA 1960,
Fig. 3, with the fi ndspot specifi ed as Wietenberg).
33 It must be pointed out here that a mistaken citation has become fi rmly established in
the archaeological literature, according to which this model was published in Volume
II of Materiale, even though it appears in Volume V.

87
Fig. 32. Bronze Age wagon models. 1. Brzeźniak (after VOSTEEN 1998, Taf. 132, 226),
2. Dupljaja (after VASIĆ 2004, Fig. 2).

88
Fig. 33. Distribution of Bronze Age wagon models in Hungary (drawing by Sándor Ősi).
1. Börzönce, 2. Polgár, 3. Törökszentmiklós, 4. Alsóvadász, 5–7. Berettyóújfalu,
8. Füzesabony, 9. Vésztő, 10–11. Berettyószentmárton, 12. Novaj,
13. Nemesnádudvar, 14. Pocsaj, 15. Békés, 16. Tószeg, 17. Cegléd, 18. Vatta.

89
The only wagon model of the Věteřov culture, a bird shaped decorated
piece, came to light at Böheimkirchen in Austria (NEUGEBAUER 1979, Abb. 8. 2;
SCHAUER 1988–1989, Abb. 5; Fig. 31. 1).
One striking feature compared to the preceding period is a perceptible richness
in the meaning of wagon models, leading into the realm of myths and beliefs.
There are few clues to the possible symbolic meaning of the simple, undecorated
wagon models from the Late Copper Age and the Early Bronze Age. Although
their probable meaning can be deciphered to some extent from the myths and
legends of later ages (the wagon/cart/chariot as a symbol of the heavens, the
vehicle of the deceased, a symbol of the Sun, the link between the Earth and the
Sky, the military chariot of war, and the like), these are, more often than not, fairly
uncertain interpretations conferred onto the artefact from hindsight. The symbolic
meaning of animal-drawn wagons is similar in many respects: in early prehistory,
they perhaps represented no more than the image of an unusual, rare spectacle,
and a permanent ritual meaning was only attached to this imagery at a later date.
Bird-drawn vehicles can probably be assigned to the latter, “canonised” types and
can perhaps be seen as early variants of the attributes linked to later mythological
heroes. In Greek mythology, for example, Apollo, the god of light, mounted
his swan-drawn chariot when he fl ew to the land of the Hyperboreans to spend
the months of darkness among his beloved people living on a mythical island.
Swans played a prominent role in the love affair between Zeus and the goddess
of fate (Nemesis or Leda). Countless other examples can be quoted from the
mythologies of various peoples. The common element in these myths and legends
is that winged creatures are invariably associated with the sky and the heavens.
We know from historical sources and the major religions that birds played an
important role in divination and in the presentation of sacrifi ces. In Hinduism,
for example, the priests presenting the sacrifi ce and the ritual dancers are called
birds, while in Christianity, winged angels are the mediums of communication
between the heavens and the earth, and the Holy Spirit is symbolised by a dove.
The joint depiction of birds, vehicles and humans in prehistory was most likely
linked to this abstraction.

91
5. Conclusions
Several hypotheses have been put forward for the area where wagons were fi rst
invented and for the routes whereby this innovation was diffused. It was initially
believed that the wagon had been invented in one specifi c region, whence in spread
to the rest of the world. The favourite candidate was Asia Minor, the region with
the earliest wagon fi nds and the highest number of wagon models. Three potential
regions were considered for the spread of wagons to Europe: the steppe north of
the Pontic, the Balkan peninsula and the eastern Mediterranean.
Piggott devoted several studies to the invention and diffusion of wagons. He
argued for Mesopotamian origins and their spread to Europe from the Russian
steppe, claiming that the diffusion of wagons could be correlated with the
migration of the Indo-European tribes (PIGGOTT 1979, 1983, 1987). It was for
a long time an axiom of vehicle studies that the cradle of wheeled conveyances
lay somewhere in the Ancient Near East and that they were diffused to Europe
from there. A re-assessment of this generally accepted view came in the early
1980s, following the discovery of genuine wagons in the burials found under
the kurgans raised by the Yamna communities of the northern Pontic. Häusler
argued that the Yamna wagons could not be derived from the Mesopotamian and
Transcaucasian vehicles, and he also rejected a steppe ancestry for the Central
and Western European wagons. Instead of invoking migrations for explaining
the appearance of wagons in Europe, he argued that European wagons were local
innovations (HÄUSLER 1978, 1981, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1992).
A comparison of the European wagon models with other contemporaneous
pieces from Anatolia and the Ancient Near East reveals that they differ signifi cantly
regarding their form and ornamentation. The Anatolian and Near Eastern wagons
are characterised by the clear-cut depiction of the four wheels, with the wheels
set on prominent axles. They are generally adorned with an incised design, often
a herringbone or zig-zag pattern. In contrast to the European wagon models, these
pieces were either forerunners of the later battle chariots or were miniatures of
covered wagons.
The miniature vehicle models from Europe usually depict an open, rectangular
wagon. The Pilismarót model is the only one which was perhaps the miniature
counterpart of a covered wagon, although it is also possible that it had been fi tted
with a curved handle resembling the one on the Radošina wagon.
In view of the many dissimilarities, one may reasonably ask whether a genetic
link can be assumed between the European and Ancient Near Eastern wheeled

92
vehicles. It must also be borne in mind that wagon fi nds outlining possible
routes of diffusion are lacking from the vast region between Anatolia, Syria and
Mesopotamia on the one hand, and the Carpathian Basin on the other.
Maran recently proposed a new model for the origins and diffusion of
wheeled vehicles. He devoted several studies to Bratislava type bowls, a curious
vessel type distributed over an extensive area. He attributed the appearance of
this vessel type in distant regions to trade contacts, arguing for a spread from
north to south (from Central Europe towards Greece and the Balkans) (MARAN
1998, 509, 512; MARAN 1998a). Maran claimed that wagons played a crucial
role in trade. Reviewing the possible commodities exchanged between various
regions, he excludes a trade in metals because the earlier, fl ourishing metallurgy
had declined visibly during the Baden period, probably owing to the exhaustion
of easily accessible ore deposits and the lack of a more sophisticated mining
technology. He suggested two new commodities that may have been traded:
obsidian and wool. Archaeometric studies have revealed that the obsidian found
on Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic sites in Greece bear a striking resemblance to
northern Hungarian and Slovakian obsidian varieties, suggesting that it originated
from these regions; the examination of two samples recovered from Early Bronze
Age contexts yielded similar results. The exchange contacts existing already in the
5th millennium and still active during the 3rd millennium thus probably survived
into the Baden period too (MARAN 1998, 515–516). Sheep played a perhaps even
more important role. A new variety of sheep known as wool sheep appeared in
the Near East during the 7th–5th millennia, whose presence can be demonstrated
in Central and South-East Europe too from the later 4th millennium onward.
This led Maran to suggest a possible trade in sheep and, more importantly, in
wool (MARAN 1998, 516). The use of wagons in the Baden culture is one of
the key arguments for dating the Baden culture to the same period in Maran’s
model. Wagons were demonstrably known in Northern and Central Europe, the
Pontic region and Mesopotamia by the later 4th millennium. Their economic
usefulness made wagons indispensable conveyances used in day to day life,
explaining their rapid diffusion over extensive territories. Maran questioned the
Mesopotamian origin of wagons, suggesting that wheeled vehicles may in fact
have been diffused southward from the Carpathian Basin. However, conclusive
proof for this possibility can only be gained from an accurate dating of the wagon
models and wagon depictions from Greece and the Ancient Near East. Maran
noted that the use of wagons spread like wildfi re after their invention (MARAN
1998, 521). Bakker and his colleagues proposed a similar date for the earliest

93
wagons: from their overview of the evidence provided by miniature wheels, the
wagon depiction on the Bronocice vessel, the wheel-ruts under the megalithic
barrow at Flintbek, the pictograms from Uruk and the available radiocarbon
dates, they concluded that wheeled vehicles had either developed more or less
simultaneously in Europe and Mesopotamia, or that they had been diffused very
rapidly from Mesopotamia (BAKKER et al. 1999, 778). They believe the latter
scenario was the more probable of the two.
Many prehistorians have accepted the possibility of multiple origins, meaning
that the wheeled vehicles could have been invented independently in various
regions.
Similarly to other major inventions, the idea of wheeled conveyances was
based on a very simple notion: the need for something which would roll and
could be dragged along for transporting items that were too bulky or too heavy
to be carried by hand. This called for some sort of rollers, a box-like container
and one or more animals to pull it along. The creation of vehicles from these
structural elements is shown in a series of illustrations I found on an educational
website (Fig. 34).34 These simple elements were available around the world, but
obviously the early need for this innovation was greater in regions where travel
and transportation were more diffi cult (e.g. in deserts and mountainous areas).
34 http://library.thinkquest.org/C004203/science/science02.htm
Fig. 34. Invention of wheeled vehicles
(after http://library.thinkquest.org/C004203/science/science02.htm).

94
Archaeological evidence for the chronological sequence described here comes
from sites of the Late Neolithic Tripolye culture (RASSAMAKIN 1999, Fig. 3. 51.
6–7).
The maps published in the Frasnois conference volume refl ect the three
most emblematic views (represented by Sherratt, Matuschik and Vosteen) on the
invention and diffusion of wheeled vehicles (PÉTREQUIN – PÉTREQUIN – BAILLY
2006, Fig. 4; Fig. 35). In Sherratt’s view, wheeled vehicles were invented in
Mesopotamia around 4000 BC, whence they spread to Europe during the next fi ve
hundred years. Matuschik argued that wheeled conveyances fi rst appeared in the
northern Pontic around 3800 BC and were diffused to Europe and Mesopotamia
within three hundred years. Vosteen argued for a simultaneous innovation in
Mesopotamia and the Carpathian Basin around 3500 BC, claiming that vehicles
reached other regions from these two centres (PÉTREQUIN – PÉTREQUIN – BAILLY
2006, 363–366).
In the past few decades, studies on the history of the Indo-European peoples
have explored the possible connection between horse-breeding, wagons and the
migration and dispersal of the Indo-European tribes; however, no conclusive
answers are forthcoming regarding the key question.
Wagon models are now dated to ever earlier periods in the light of recent
fi nds and other evidence confi rming the early existence and use of wheeled
vehicles. Research into early vehicles and wagon models does not simply focus
on iconographic traits, but also on the ritual and mythological dimensions of
these fi nds. There has been a growing emphasis on the role of wheeled vehicles
in daily life, their economic signifi cance, the importance of innovations and the
level of technical advances in various prehistoric cultures, as well as on the extent
to which cultures were receptive to new inventions and on how innovations were
transferred. Sherratt’s model on the secondary exploitation of animals brought a
new perspective to research on early wheeled vehicles (SHERRATT 1981, 1983).
The number of wagon models has increased manifold since Childe published
his seminal study. The new radiocarbon and dendrochronological dates for the
Baden culture have called for a re-assessment of earlier hypotheses regarding the
appearance of wagons and have shown that this major innovation can be dated
earlier than previously believed. The fresh evidence for the European spread of
wheeled vehicles has outlined a potentially new route of diffusion from north
to south. It is an open question why the communities using wagons would have
only migrated southward and why they would not have set off in all directions,
reaching even the remotest corners of Europe during their journeys to explore the

95
Fig. 35. Hypotheses on the origins of wheeled vehicles and animal traction
(after PÉTREQUIN – PÉTREQUIN – BAILLY 2006, Fig. 4).

96
Fig. 36. Chronological chart (from Hungarian Archaeology at the Turn of the Millennium).

97
world around them. The question of origins and diffusion remains unresolved,
as does the speed and route of the diffusion. It seems most unlikely that an
innovation as important as the wagon would have sunk into oblivion, and thus
the low number of wagon models and wheels perhaps refl ects the changing role
of wheeled vehicles in everyday life. It would appear that once wagons became
nondescript items of daily life and economic activities, and the novelty of the
exceptional, magical innovation wore off, the need to create miniature replicas of
wagons slowly evaporated.
The remains of real wheels, wooden trackways and fi nds of genuine wooden
carts deposited in burials have added new dimensions to the study of wagons and
simple transport vehicles.
The assumption that real wooden wagons with wooden wheels existed
simultaneously with their miniature counterparts in clay from the Late Copper
Age to the Middle Bronze Age was recently confi rmed by the discovery of a
real wooden wheel and a clay wheel model at Olzreuter Ried near Federsee in
Germany (SCHLICHTHERLE 2006, 2010). Genuine wheeled vehicles and their
reduced clay models were obviously made for different purposes: wagons played
a crucial role in a given community’s daily life, while their miniature replicas were
part of the sacral sphere, perhaps as devices used in rituals designed to ensure
that a cargo of goods reached its destination safely. However, any speculation
regarding the one-time function of the clay models remains educated guesswork
at best. Nothing certain can be known. Most prehistorians regard them as ritual,
ceremonial artefacts, symbols of the Sun, although it is equally possible that they
were toys.
It is now evident, for example, that wheels had also been attached to
transport conveyances other than wagons. We can now draw a difference
between four-wheeled wagons and two-wheeled carts or two-wheeled ploughs.
Archaeozoologists are now studying possible morphological alterations caused
by harnessing and yoking on animal bones, which hardly occur from one moment
to the other.
The ornamentation of the wagon models usually corresponds to the decorative
motifs occurring on the vessels of the cultures they are assigned to. One of the
implications is that some of the designs adorning pottery too carried a symbolic
meaning which also appeared on other artefacts such as fi gurines and wagon
models. Suffi ce it here to quote the correspondences between the adornments
on the so-called bell-skirted fi gurines and the ceramics of the Encrusted Pottery

98
culture.35 The currently known corpus of wagon models suggests that some
cultures used both decorated and plain pieces, and that there was considerable
variation in type even within a single culture. Surprisingly enough, the rich
diversity in wagon models is not a refl ection of many different cultures, but rather
an indication that wagon models were vested with different meanings within the
same archaeological culture, recalling the similar diversity of Late Copper Age
fi gurines (BONDÁR 2008, 174).
Despite the testimony of the literary sources of later ages, it is virtually
impossible to decipher the beliefs and the cognitive contents associated with
the vehicle models of the Bronze Age. Customs, rituals and various elements of
religious beliefs survive for extremely long periods of time even if they are in
constant fl ux. Suffi ce it here to recall the still surviving elements of the Celtic
mythological traditions – rediscovered by 19th century romanticism – and the over
two thousand years of Christianity and its symbols. With due caution, we can turn
to the legends of various peoples and the scattered references in myths in order
to interpret the more unusual artefacts of prehistory. Using this approach, we
can perhaps identify a correlation between various artefacts and their associated
abstract content. This represents the initial phases of symbolic thought and the
creation of symbols, as well as the formative phase of similar cognitive elements
linking various regions (often lying at great distances from each other) which
eventually led to the rise of the rich diversity of symbols. Theses symbols form
the building blocks of mythologies and the colourful tapestry of beliefs in the
canonised religions of later ages. An analysis of this type, however, would lead
far from archaeology.
None of the known wagon models came to light in their original context;
all were recovered from secondary contexts, most often from the refuse pits of
settlements into which the broken pieces were discarded. It is virtually impossible
to reconstruct the original function of the wagon models. The few pieces recovered
from burials were accessories of the funerary ceremony similarly to the other
grave goods, which were buried with the deceased after the conclusion of the
burial ceremony. We shall never know whether they were funerary gifts or status
symbols expressing the deceased’s rank during his lifetime. The genuine wooden
wagons deposited in burials would suggest that these four-wheeled vehicles
still carried an aura of mystery around them and that they were only used on
35 Géza Szabó came to a similar conclusion from his analysis of the rich material of the
Encrusted Pottery cemetery at Bonyhád (SZABÓ – HAJDU 2011, 100–105).

99
exceptional occasions and by specifi c members of a community as an expression
of their status.
At present, we have no way of deciphering either the ritual meaning of wagon
models, or their one-time role. The wagon models of the “dark age” may well
have been simple toys, but they may equally have been the embodiments of
prestige items symbolising wealth and social standing, or symbols of the Sun
in formative, early beliefs transmitted from one generation to the next. They
may also represent the rudimentary forms of iconographic signs associated with
later deities. Whatever their one-time meaning and function, we can at best only
make educated guesses. The currently known wagon models are restricted to a
far smaller area than the one in which wheeled vehicles were actually known and
used. The many pieces known from Mesopotamia, Greece, Italy, the Carpathian
Basin, the Pontic, India and China indicate that the miniature models had a
specifi c meaning and signifi cance in certain regions, and it can hardly be mere
chance that the temporal distribution of the known models correlates with the
fl ourishing prehistoric cultures and civilisations. In contrast, several regions from
which models are lacking, such as the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland and
Slovenia, have yielded the remains of genuine wooden vehicles.
In addition to simple (reduced) wagon models, the appearance of protomes
modelled in the shape of animal heads and, later, of bird chariots represents a
distinct category. This is a refl ection of the cognitive changes in the secondary role
of this major innovation – the process of how wheeled vehicles were gradually
transformed from sacred ritual paraphernalia into profane objects of daily life
without any special meaning. This transformation outlines a cultural trajectory
from the simple commemoration of an exceptional invention to mythical
abstraction and then to simple, nondescript items of everyday life.
The earliest depictions of wheeled vehicles refl ecting a familiarity with this
innovation seem to suggest their ritual importance. The symbols on the Bronocice
vessel, perhaps representing trees, water and buildings (KRUK – MILISAUSKAS
1991, Fig. 3) and the fact that real wagons were sometimes deposited in graves
would imply that four-wheeled vehicles were vested with magical properties after
their invention, to be used by certain individuals only on exceptional occasions.
The deposition of these wagons and of miniature clay models in graves too leads
into the realm of religious beliefs.
Although we will probably never be able to fully reconstruct prehistoric beliefs
and rituals, it seems instructive to review a few of the explanations proposed by
various scholars.

100
Soproni believed that the wagon model from Grave 177 of the Budakalász
cemetery, a symbolic burial, could somehow be associated with the cult of the
dead and that the deposition of the wagon model was a forerunner of later burials
containing real wagons (SOPRONI 1954, 35). Bóna suggested that the wagon
model, originally a ritual device, had acquired a secondary role and had become
an unused vessel by the time it was deposited (BÓNA 1960, 109). János Makkay
interpreted the wagon model as a votive object used for presenting sacrifi ces
to the Great Goddess (MAKKAY 1963; 1965), while Fettich suggested that the
miniature wagons represented the funerary wagons on which the deceased were
transported to the goddess presiding over the netherworld (FETTICH 1969, 51).
Kalicz too regarded wagon models as part of the paraphernalia used in rituals.
Quoting Mesopotamian parallels, he claimed that wagons had perhaps been
used for storing the sacred oil used in rituals (KALICZ 1976a, 117). The few
interpretations quoted here illustrate the diffi culties in inferring past modes of
thought from material remains.
The ritual role of the Late Copper Age wagon models from the Carpathian
Basin can hardly be challenged.36 The distribution of wagon models and of
other ritual artefacts such as fi gurines and vessels modelled in the shape of a
stylised female body shows a concentration in certain regions. It is possible
that – similarly to the urban settlements in Anatolia and the Caucasus, and the
large Cucuteni–Tripolye settlements – these regions played an important role in
the Baden world and there was a hierarchy and a difference in status between
the culture’s settlements. The concentration of ritual fi nds perhaps refl ects
administrative, economic or ritual centres with a larger population, where trade
was conducted or where the ceremonies and rituals expressing the community’s
cohesion were enacted (BONDÁR 2007). The current evidence is insuffi cient for
proving the existence of settlements resembling the highly-developed city states
of the Ancient Near East in the Carpathian Basin, even if it seems likely that the
concentration of these rare, unusual ritual or prestige items was not mere chance
(BONDÁR 2008, 180). Different lines of enquiry can contribute valuable insights
into the hierarchy and status of Late Copper Age communities. They include the
evaluation of settlement patterns and the study of subsistence in the light of the
potentials of the environment. Determining the relation of crop cultivation to
animal husbandry in the economy would be of special importance. Demographic
36 A function as toys can perhaps be ascribed to some of the small Bronze Age wagon
models (OLEXA 1983; BONDÁR 1990; SCHLICHTHERLE 2010).

101
analyses of burials and the identifi cation of various prestige items, as well as the
fortuitous discovery of assemblages from well-documented contexts permit us to
broaden the picture of the cognitive sphere and religious beliefs. The assessment
of fi nds from large-scale excavations will no doubt provide an answer to the
question of whether the receptiveness of the communities of the Carpathian Basin
was governed by genuine socio-economic needs, or whether the innovations were
born among the communities living here and then diffused to more distant regions
whose economy was ready for their integration.
Wagon fi nds could doubtless be studied and discussed from several other
aspects too. In this study, I have focused on the current state of prehistoric vehicle
studies and the major advances made in this fi eld, especially regarding dating and
the origins of this innovation. My goal was to add new perspectives to the study
of this fascinating artefact type by reviewing the evidence on the currently known
wagon models from Hungary and other regions of the Carpathian Basin.
The growing number of wagon models and the increasing evidence on
wheeled vehicles, as well as the precisely documented fi nd contexts will no doubt
add new dimensions to the study of wheeled vehicles, raise new questions and
enable a broader perspective on the archaeological record of an innovation that
played and continues to play a vital role in human life.

103
6. CATALOGUE
The Catalogue contains a brief description of the Late Copper Age, Early Bronze
Age and Middle Bronze Age wagon models found in Hungary. Alongside a brief
description, I have included only the fi rst publication of the known models and
the studies with a new photo or illustration of a particular piece. I have quoted the
dimensions as specifi ed in the original publication, this being the reason for the
slight inconsistencies in this respect.
Abbreviations:
H: height, L: length, W: width, dR: diameter of rim, dB: diameter of base
6.1. Late Copper Age wagon models from Hungary
Eighteen Late Copper Age wagon models are currently known from the Carpathian
Basin, eleven of which were found in Hungary (Fig. 19).
1. Balatonberény, 22 Ady E. Street (County Somogy) (Fig. 11)
Boleráz culture. Gift.
Body and basal fragments of a thick-walled wagon box. The sides are decorated
with a horizontal zig-zag pattern, the underside is plain. The axle probably passed
through the two handle-like knobs on the underside. Assembled from its fragments
and restored. H. 12.5 cm, L. 23 cm (top), 20 cm (bottom), W. 16.5 cm (top), 13 cm
(bottom). Kaposvár, Rippl Rónai Museum, acquisitions register no. 02/04 (BONDÁR
2004, Fig. 5. 1, Fig. 6).
2. Boglárlelle, 74–76 Úszó Street (County Somogy) (Fig. 8. 2a–b, Fig. 9)
Boleráz culture. Settlement fi nd.
Fragment of a thick-walled wagon box. The four corners are topped by fl attish knobs.
Each side is decorated with an incised zig-zag pattern. The stubs of two applied
ornaments remain in the middle of one of the short sides. The underside bears a mat
impression. Assembled from its fragments. Almost intact, save for a small part of
the base and one corner. H. 10 cm, L. 16 cm (top), 14 cm (bottom), W. 11 cm (top),
9 cm (bottom). Kaposvár, Rippl Rónai Museum, acquisitions register no. 76/18

104
(ECSEDY 1982, Fig. 8. 9a–b; HONTI – KÖLTŐ – NÉMETH 1988, Pl. II. 1–2; BONDÁR
2004, Fig. 3; BONDÁR 2007, 25, Fig. 13).37
3. Budakalász-Luppa csárda, Grave 158 (County Pest) (Fig. 6)
Baden culture. Grave fi nd from an inhumation burial.
Plain vessel with roughly trapezoidal sides modelled in the shape of a wagon, painted
red on the exterior and interior. The rim is peaked at the four corners. The four
tiny knobs on the underside indicate the place of the axles. H. 5.5 cm, dR. 9.3 cm,
dB. 5.5 cm. Szentendre, Ferenczy Museum, inv. no. 61.2.27.2. Sándor Soproni’s
excavation, 1953 (SOPRONI 1954, Pl. VI. 5; BONDÁR 2009, Pl. LXVI. 158/2).
4. Budakalász-Luppa csárda, Grave 177 (County Pest) (Fig. 1 A, Fig. 5)
Baden culture. Grave fi nd from a symbolic burial.
Rectangular vessel with peaked rim modelled in the shape of a four-wheeled wagon
model. Each side is decorated with zig-zag lines under the rim. The short side
opposite the handle has a design of three parallel zig-zag lines. The incised lines on
the underside mark the axles and the planks from which the wagon was constructed.
The wheels are solid, unperforated discs on which the hubs are represented by a
small knob. One wheel is missing. Painted red on the exterior and interior. H. 8 cm,
dR. 8 cm, dB. 7.6 cm. Szentendre, Ferenczy Museum, inv. no. 61.2.35.5. Sándor
Soproni’s excavation 1953 (SOPRONI 1954, Pl. VII. 1–2; BANNER 1956, Pl. 120;
BONDÁR 2009, Pl. LXXIX. 177/3).
5. Esztergom-Szentkirály (County Komárom-Esztergom) (Fig. 13. 1a–b)
Baden culture. Settlement fi nd.
Five fragments of a diagonally broken oblong wagon box with rounded corners.
The wagon box was originally set on four oval knobs. An irregular double zig-zag
line runs under the rim. The wagon box was covered with bright red paint, probably
by immersion into the paint. H. 3.5 cm, L. (diagonal) 11 cm (top), 7 cm (bottom).
Esztergom, Balassa Bálint Museum, inv. no. 2000.78.18./a. Etelka Kövecses Varga’s
excavation, 1988 (KÖVECSES VARGA 2010, 4–8, Fig. 15).
37 Balatonlelle and Balatonboglár formed a single settlement known as Boglárlelle for
some time; today, they are again separate settlements; the wagon model was found at
Balatonlelle.

105
6. Esztergom-Szentkirály (County Komárom-Esztergom) (Fig. 13. 2)
Baden culture. Settlement fi nd.
Fragment of the lower corner of a wagon model’s rear end. Part of the zig-zag
motif adorning the rear side and the stub of a loop handle survive. A small rib,
probably marking the axle of the rear wheels, runs across the underside. The pair
of asymmetrical chevrons on either side of the loop handle was part of the zig-zag
pattern. H. (surviving) 2.6 cm, W. (under the handle stub) 3.3 cm, W. of handle stub
2 cm. Esztergom, Balassa Bálint Museum, inv. no. 2001.21.95. Etelka Kövecses
Varga’s excavation, 1988 (KÖVECSES VARGA 2010, 9–11, Fig. 14. 1).
7. Esztergom-Szentkirály (County Komárom-Esztergom) (Fig. 13. 3)
Baden culture. Settlement fi nd.
Body and base fragment of a rectangular wagon box with rounded corners. No traces
of painting survive on the fragment. Judging from the surviving fragment, the wheel
had a diameter of ca. 4 cm. A design of four bands separated by more or less parallel
lines adorns the lower part. One band is fi lled with vertical hatching, the other three
with oblique hatching. Another incised line, perhaps marking the axle, can be made
out between the two shortest bands. H. 2 cm, L. (internal) 3.5 cm, L. (external)
4.8 cm, W. 3.1 cm. Esztergom, Balassa Bálint Museum, inv. no. 2001.29.60. Etelka
Kövecses Varga’s excavation, 1988 (KÖVECSES VARGA 2010, 12–13, Fig. 14. 2).
8. Kaposvár-Toponár, Bypass Site 61/2 (County Somogy) (Fig. 14)
Boleráz culture. Settlement fi nd.
The surface of the imperfectly fi red wagon model is rough. Three sides are decorated
with a pattern of vertical incisions arranged into three rows, and it seems likely
that the fourth side too bore some decorative pattern. The underside of the wagon
box is plain. L. of the long side 9.5 cm (top), 8.3 cm (bottom), L. of the short side
8.5 cm (top), 7 cm (bottom), H. (without the knobs) 5 cm. Kaposvár, Rippl Rónai
Museum, identifi cation number: 98/102.597.264. Edith Bárdos’s excavation, 1999
(BÁRDOS – GALLINA 1999; BONDÁR 2012, Fig. 1) A colour photo of the restored

106
and reconstructed wagon model published in the centennial jubilee volume of the
Kaposvár museum erroneously specifi es the fi ndspot as Balatonőszöd.38
9. Moha-Homokbánya (County Fejér) (Fig. 12)
Boleráz culture. Stray fi nd.
Rectangular wagon box with the stub of an applied decoration on one of the short
sides. Each side bears a design of hatched lozenges. The axles are marked by small
handle-like knobs. Almost intact. H. 11.5 cm, L. 14.5 cm (top), 14 cm (bottom),
W. 12.2 cm (top), 10.5 cm (bottom). Private collection (KOVÁCS 2006, Abb. 1).
10. Pilismarót-Basaharc, Grave 445 (County Komárom-Esztergom) (Fig. 8. 3a–c)
Boleráz culture. Settlement fi nd.
Plain rectangular vessel with trapezoidal sides and peaked corners. The underside
bears a mat impression. Assembled from its fragments and restored. H. 4.9 cm,
L. 7.5 cm (top), 8.5 cm (bottom), W. 7.5 cm (top), 8.5 cm (bottom). Esztergom,
Balassa Bálint Museum, inv. no. 88.102.2. István Torma’s excavation, 1971
(BONDÁR 1990, Abb. 7. 3a–c).
11. Szigetszentmárton, 13 Dózsa György Street (County Pest) (Fig. 15. 2)
Baden culture. Grave fi nd from an inhumation burial.
Rectangular vessel modelled in the shape of a four-wheeled wagon with trapezoidal
sides. The rim is curved, the corners are peaked. One long side and one short side is
decorated with an incised zig-zag pattern under the rim. A vertical zig-zagging line
runs from the corners to the base. The wheels are connected with a clay cylinder
marking the axles. The wheel hubs are indicated by tiny knobs. H. 7.2 cm, W. 7.3 cm,
L. 7.6 cm. Hungarian National Museum, inv. no. 72.19.1. Found in 1972, during
house construction. The site was excavated by Tibor Kemenczei (KALICZ 1976,
Abb. 3).
38 Jubileumi kötet. 1909–2009. 100 éves a Múzeum [Jubilee volume 1909–2009.
The hundred years old museum], published as volume 19 of Somogyi Múzeumok
Közleményei in 2010. A colour photo of the wagon model discussed and published
here appears on p. 59, together with the pieces from Boglárlelle (with the fi ndspot
erroneously specifi ed as Balatonlelle) and Balatonberény (specifi ed as coming from
Balatonendréd).

107
6.2. Early and Middle Bronze Age wagon models from Hungary
The corpus of Early and Middle Bronze Age wagon models from the Carpathian
Basin has increased manifold. A total of eighty-nine sites yielded wagon models
(discounting the sites where miniature wheels have been found), twenty per cent
of which, nineteen models in all, came to light in Hungary (Fig. 33).
1. Alsóvadász-Várdomb (County Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén) (Fig. 20. 5)
Hatvan culture. Settlement fi nd.
The short side and a section of the adjoining long side survived of the rectangular
wagon box. The four sides were probably decorated with an identical design. A drawn
reconstruction was published by Kalicz (KALICZ 1968, Taf. CXIII. 2). In contrast to
Kalicz’s interpretation, Fettich believed that the surviving short side represented the
wagon’s front and that the two outcurving peaks in the upper corners symbolised
how the draught animals were harnessed. His reconstruction does not have peaked
corners on the back side (FETTICH 1969, Pl. XI. 3). Fettich also claimed that the
model had been found at Felsővadász, quoting Kalicz’s informant as his source
(FETTICH 1969, 55, note 39).
2. Békés (County Békés)
Gyulavarsánd culture. Stray fi nd.
In his study on wagon models and miniature wheels, Bóna quoted the upper
corner fragment of a wagon model, noting that two corner fragments, one from
Szamosújvár, the other from Békés, recalled the upper section or corner of the then
known wagon models (BÓNA 1960, 86). The fragment from Békés is also listed in
the catalogue of Bronze Age wagon models from Hungary (BÓNA 1994, 74).39
3. Berettyószentmárton (County Hajdú-Bihar) (Fig. 21. 4)
Gyulavarsánd culture. Stray fi nd.
Conical wagon box with incised decoration. H. 8 cm, L. 15 cm (BRONZEZEIT IN
UNGARN Cat. no. 330).
39 Despite a thorough search, I was unable to fi nd the fragment in the collection of either
the Békéscsaba, or the Gyula museum. I looked through the relevant archaeological
literature and the volumes of the Hungarian Archaeological Topography, and I enlisted
the help of Imre Szathmári, director of the County Békés Museums, whom I wish to
thank for his selfl ess help in checking old inventory numbers in search of the wagon
model. It seems that this fragment has been lost.

108
4. Berettyóújfalu-Herpály (County Hajdú-Bihar) (Fig. 21. 1)
Ottomány culture. Settlement fi nd.
Plain, conical wagon box with perforated lower corners. The exact dimensions were
not published by the excavator (MÁTHÉ 1984, Pl. 6. 1).
5. Berettyóújfalu-Herpály (County Hajdú-Bihar)
Ottományi culture. Settlement fi nd.
Sz. Máthé mentioned the fragment of a wagon model, without publishing an
illustration. According to her description, the fragment is decorated and represents
the Pocsaj type, characterised by four oblique perforations in the upper corners
(MÁTHÉ 1984, 148–149).
6. Berettyóújfalu-Herpály (County Hajdú-Bihar)
Ottomány culture. Stray fi nd.
Sz. Máthé mentioned the fragment of a wagon model, without publishing an
illustration. According to her description, the fragment is decorated and represents
the Pocsaj type, characterised by four oblique perforations in the upper corners
(MÁTHÉ 1984, 148–149).
7. Börzönce-Temetői dűlő (County Zala) (Fig. 20. 1)
Somogyvár–Vinkovci culture. Settlement fi nd from a pit.
Plain, conical wagon box with rounded, perforated lower corners for the axles.
L. 5.4 cm, W. 3.9 cm and 3.2 cm (BONDÁR 1990, Fig. 5).
8. Füzesabony-Öregdomb (County Heves) (Fig. 21. 2)
Late Hatvan culture. Settlement fi nd.
Fragment of a rectangular wagon box with perforated lower corners. Decorated.
L. 5.6 cm, W. 5 cm, H. 4.8 cm (KOVÁCS 2006, Abb. 4, The caption is erroneous
because the wagon model shown in the fi gure is an unprovenanced piece, while the
model in question is shown in Abb. 3).
9. Nemesnádudvar (County Bács-Kiskun) (Figs 23–25)
See the description on pp. 64–71 (SZÉKELY 2010).

109
10. Novaj (County Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén) (Fig. 1, Fig. 22. 1)
Füzesabony culture. Settlement fi nd.
Fragment of a rectangular wagon box with perforated lower corners. Decorated.
H. 6.6 cm, W. 6.1 cm, L. 5.5 cm. Bóna published a reconstruction of the wagon
model (BÓNA 1960, Abb. 3, Taf. LXII. 1–3). Fettich’s reconstruction of this wagon
model differs slightly (FETTICH 1969, 41–43, Pl. V. 1, 1a, 1b).
11. Pocsaj-Leányvár (County Hajdú-Bihar) (Fig. 22. 2)
Ottomány culture. Stray fi nd.
Almost intact wagon model with conical wagon box and perforated lower corners.
L. 13.5 cm and 14 cm, W. 8 cm. Mesterházy published a detailed description, photo
and drawing of this piece (MESTERHÁZY 1976). Bóna published a colour photo (BÓNA
1994, Fig. 34). Although Bóna assigned this wagon model to the Gyulavarsánd
culture, the analogies to this piece from the tell settlements in Transylvania suggest
a cultural attribution to the Ottomány culture. A good drawing of the wagon model
was recently published by János Dani (DANI 2005, 306, Fig. 3).
12. Polgár-Kenderföldek-Kiscsőszhalom (County Hajdú-Bihar) (Fig. 20. 2)
Late Hatvan culture. Settlement fi nd.
Fragment of a wagon model (MÁTHÉ 1991, 13). While an illustration of the wagon
model was recently published, its dimensions were not specifi ed (RACZKY –
ANDERS 2001, Fig. 13, colour photo). The photo and additional data on the fi nd
circumstances (according to which the fragments came to light from two separate
features) were kindly provided by János Dani. I would here like to thank Ákos Jurás
for the photo.
13. Tószeg (County Szolnok)
Hatvan culture. Settlement fi nd.
In his study on wagon models and miniature wheels, Bóna quoted the lower corner
fragment of a wagon model from this site, noting that the fragments of the rectangular
wagon box “with low rim” had been recovered from Layer B of the Hatvan culture
settlement (BÓNA 1960, 86, fragment no. 133 of the 1912 excavation). Although
the wagon model is mentioned in the catalogue of Bronze Age wagon models from
Hungary (BÓNA 1994, 75), nothing more is known about it.

110
14. Törökszentmiklós-Terehalom (County Szolnok) (Fig. 20. 3)
Hatvan culture. Unstratifi ed settlement fi nd.
Fragment of a conical wagon box with perforated lower corners. Decorated.
L. 12.9 cm, W. 4.8 cm (TÁRNOKI 1999, Pl. 2).
15. Vésztő-Mágor (County Békés) (Fig. 21. 3)
Gyulavarsánd culture. Settlement fi nd.
Conical wagon box with perforated lower corners. Decorated. L. 18 cm, H. 6 cm
(KOVÁCS 1994, 76, Fig. 38, colour photo; LE BEL A GE 1994, Cat. no. 425; MAKKAY
2004, 54. Fig. 12).
16. Unprovenanced (Fig. 20. 4)
Late Hatvan culture. Stray fi nd.
Fragment of a rectangular wagon box set on four perforated knobs. Decorated with
a fi nely incised design. L. 11 cm, W. 5.5 cm, L. 11 cm (top), W. 3.2 cm, H. 5.5 cm,
L. 5.8 cm (bottom), W. 3.7 cm, H. 4.6 cm (KOVÁCS 2006, Abb. 3, however, the
caption is erroneous because the wagon model shown in the fi gure was found at
Füzesabony, while the model in question is shown in Abb. 4; SZATHMÁRY 2007, 22,
colour photo).
17. Berettyószentmárton-Korhány-halom (County Hajdú-Bihar)
Middle Bronze Age. Stray fi nd.
Possible fragment of a wagon model found during a fi eld survey in 2000 (DANI in
print).
18. Cegléd, Intézeti- és Bába-Molnár-dűlő (County Pest)
Nagyrév culture. Settlement.
A 5 cm x 8 cm large fragment of the base and side of a wagon model came to light
from a pit. Excavation by András Rajna, 2005 (RAJNA 2005, 219).
19. Vatta-Dobogó (County Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén)
Hatvan culture. Settlement fi nd.
Almost intact, plain wagon box. L. 13.5 cm, W. 8 cm. Excavation by Judit Koós,
2009 (KOÓS 2009, 379).

111
7. References
AARHUS, N. J. – LAURSEN, S. 2010
Routes and Wheeled Transport in Late 4th–Early 3rd Millennium Funerary
Customs of the Jutland Peninsula: Regional Evidence and European Context.
Prähistorische Zeitschrift 85, 15–58.
ACHSE, RAD UND WAGEN 2002
W. Treue (ed.), Fünftausende Jahre Kultur- und Technikgeschichte.
Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, Göttingen.
ANATI, E. 1960
Bronze Age Chariots from Europe. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 26,
50–62.
ANTHONY, D. W. 1995
Horse, wagon and chariot: Indo-European languages and archaeology.
Antiquity 69, 554–565.
ANTHONY, D. W. 2007
The Horse, the Wheel and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the
Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World. NJ: Princeton University Press,
Princeton.
ANTHONY, D. W. – VINOGRADOV, N. B. 1995
Birth of the Chariot. Excavations east of the Ural Mountains reveal traces of
the fi rst two-wheeled high-performance vehicles. Archaeology 48, 36–41.
ANTHONY, D. W. – BROWN, D. R. 2007
The Secondary Products Revolution, Horse-Riding and Mounted Warfare.
Paper read at the session, Horses and Humans in Antiquty. Harnessing
horsepower. Session in honour of Andrew Sherratt at the Society for American
Archaeologists annual conference in Austin, April 10, 2007. Conference
organised by A. Bauer.
BĂCUEŢ, S. 1998
Un cărucior de lut descoperit la Bădăcin (Jud. Sălaj) – A clay wagon discovered
at Bădăcin (Sălaj County). Apulum 35, 37–41.
BADER, T. 1978
Epoca bronzului în nordvestul Transilvaniei. Editura ştiinţifi că şi
enciclopedică, Bucureşti.

112
BAKKER, J. A. – KRUK, J. – LANTING, A. E. – MILISAUSKAS, S. 1999
The earliest evidence of wheeled vehicles in Europe and the Near East.
Antiquity 73, 778–790.
BALASSA, I. 1973
Az eke és a szántás története Magyarországon. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest.
BANNER, J. 1956
Die Péceler Kultur. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest. Archaeologica Hungarica
35.
BÁRDOS, E. – GALLINA, ZS. 1999
Kaposvár, 61-es út elkerülő szakasz, 2. és 3. számú lelőhely. In: E. Marton (ed.),
Régészeti Kutatások Magyarországon 1999 – Archaeological Investigations
in Hungary. 214. Kulturális Örökségvédelmi Hivatal, Budapest.
BARTOSIEWICZ, L. – VAN NEER, W. – LENTACKER, A. 1997
Draught cattle: Their osteological identifi cation and history. Tervuren,
Koninklijk Museum voor Midden-Afrika, Annalen, Zoologische
Wetenschappen Vol. 281.
BASSI, G. – FORNI, G. 1988
Gli stumenti di lavoro tradizionali lodigiani e la loro storia. Museo Lombardo
di Storia dell’Agricoltura, Milano.
BETWEEN THE AEGEAN AND BALTIC SEAS 2007
I. Galanaki – H. Tomas – Y. Galanakis – R. Laffi neur (eds), Prehistory across
borders. Proceedings of the International Conference. Bronze and Early Iron
Age Interconnections and Contemporary Developments between the Aegean
and the Regions of the Balkan Peninsula, Central and Northern Europe.
University of Zagreb, 11–14 April 2005. Liège. Aegeum 27.
BICHIR, G. 1964
Autour du problème des plus anciens modèles de chariots découverts en
Roumanie. Dacia 8, 67–86.
BOGHIAN, D. 2008–2009
Cu privire la unele vase eneolitice cu protome perechi. – Considérations sur
les quelques vases énéolithiques avec protomés paires. Memoria Antiquitatis
25–26, 159–170.
BÓNA, I. 1960
Clay Models of Bronze Age Wagons and Wheels in the Middle Danube Basin.
Acta Achaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungariae 12, 83–111.

113
BÓNA, I. 1992
Wagen und Wagenmodelle in der Tell-Kulturen. In: BRONZEZEIT IN UNGARN
73–75.
BÓNA, I. 1994
Voitures et maquettes de voitures dans les cultures des tells. In: LE BEL AGE
73–75.
BONDÁR, M. 1990
Das frühbronzezeitliche Wagenmodell von Börzönce. Communicationes
Archaeologicae Hungariae 1990, 77–91.
BONDÁR, M. 1992
Kora bronzkori kocsimodell Börzöncéről. – Das frühbronzezeitliche
Wagenmodell von Börzönce. Zalai Múzeum 4, 113–127.
BONDÁR, M. 2002
A badeni kultúra kutatási helyzete Magyarországon (Vázlat) – Der
Forschungsstand der Badener Kultur in Ungarn (Abriß). Móra Ferenc
Múzeum Évkönyve – Studia Archaeologica 8, 7–30.
BONDÁR, M. 2004
A kocsi a késő rézkori Európában. – Der Wagen im spätkupferzeitlichen
Europa. Archaeologiai Értesítő 129, 5–34.
BONDÁR, M. 2006
Le chariot en Europe au Chalcolithique récent. In: PREMIERS CHARIOTS,
PREMIERS ARAIRES 225–237.
BONDÁR, M. 2007
Késő rézkori idolok Balatonszemes–Szemesi-berek lelőhelyről. In:
K. Belényesy – Sz. Honti – V. Kiss (eds), Gördülő idő. Régészeti feltárások
az M7-es autópálya Somogy megyei szakaszán Zamárdi és Ordacsehi
között – Rolling time. Excavations on the Motorway in County Somogy
between Zamárdi and Ordacsehi. 133–135. A Somogy Megyei Múzeumok
Igazgatósága – MTA Régészeti Intézete, Budapest.
BONDÁR, M. 2008
The Paraphernalia of Cult Life in the Late Copper Age. Acta Achaeologica
Academiae Scientiarum Hungariae 59, 171–81.
BONDÁR, M. 2009
Catalogue of graves. In: M. Bondár – P. Raczky (eds), The Copper Age
cemetery of Budakalász. 31–196. Pytheas, Budapest.

114
BONDÁR, M. 2012
A new Late Copper Age wagon model from the Carpathian Basin. In:
P. Anreiter – E. Bánffy – L. Bartosiewicz – W. Meid – C. Metzner-Nebelsick
(eds), Archaeological, Cultural and Linguistic Heritage. Festschrift for
Erzsébet Jerem in Honour of her 70th Birthday. 79–91. Archaeolingua,
Budapest.
BONDÁR, M. in print
Utilitarian, artistic, ritual or prestige articles? The possible function of an
enigmatic artefact. Ősrégészeti Tanulmányok.
BONDÁR, M. – V. SZÉKELY, GY. 2011
A New Early Bronze Age Wagon Model from the Carpathian Basin. World
Archeology 43/4, 538–553.
BOROFFKA, N. 1994
Die Wietenberg-Kultur. Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der Bronzezeit in
Südosteuropa. I–II. Rudolf Habelt, Bonn. Universitätsforschungen zur
Prähistorischen Archäologie 19.
BOROFFKA, N. 2004
Bronzezeitliche Wagenmodelle im Karpatenbecken. In: FANSA – BURMEISTER
2004, 347–354.
BRONZEZEIT IN UNGARN 1992
I. Bóna (ed.), Bronzezeit in Ungarn. Forschungen in Tell Siedlungen an Donau
und Theiss. Ausstellungskatalog. Museum für Vor- und Frühgeschichte,
Frankfurt am Main.
BURMEISTER, S. 2004
Der Wagen im Neolithikum und in der Bronzezeit: Erfi ndung, Ausbreitung
und Funktion der ersten Fahrzeuge. In: FANSA–BURMEISTER 2004, 13–40.
BURMEISTER, S. 2011
Innovationswege – Wege der Kommunikation. Erkenntnisprobleme am
Beispiel des Wagens im 4. Jt. v. Chr. In: Hansen, S. – Müller, J. (eds),
Sozialarchäologische Perspektiven: Gesellschaftlicher Wandel 5000–1500
v. Chr. zwischen Atlantik und Kaukasus. 211–240. Internationale Tagung
15.–18. Oktober 2007 in Kiel. Deutsches Archäologisches Institut Eurasien-
Abteilung Berlin und Christian-Albrechts-Universität Kiel Institut für Ur-
und Frühgeschichte Kiel. Verlag Philip Zabern, Berlin-Kiel. Archäologie in
Eurasien Band 24.

115
CĂPITANU, V. – FLORESCU, M. 1969
Aşezarea din epoca bronzului de la Podul Morii–Bărboasa, com. Oncesti – La
station Monteoru de Podeu Morii–Bărboasa. Carpica 2, 23–34.
CASKEY, M. E. 1978
News Letter from Greece. American Journal of Archaeology 82/3, 339–53.
CAUBET, A. 2000
Ugarit at the Louvre Museum. Near Eastern Archaeology 63/4, 216–19.
CHIDIOŞAN, N. 1980
Contribuţii la istoria tracilor din Nord-Vestul României. Aşezarea Wietenberg
de la Derşida. – Contibutions à l’histoire des Thraces du Nord-Ouest de la
Roumanie. L’établissement de la culture Wietenberg de Derşida. Muzeul
Ţării Crişurilor, Oradea.
CHILDE, V. G. 1935
L’Orient Préhistorique. Éditions Payot, Paris.
CHILDE, V. G. 1950
Prehistoric Migrations in Europe. Instituttet for Sammenlignende
Kulturforskning. Oslo. H. Aschehoug & Co.; Otto Harrassowitz; Sosiété
d’Édition “Les Belles Lettres”; Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner and Co. Ltd.;
Harvard University Press. Oslo, Leipzig, Paris, London, Cambridge Mass.
CHILDE, V. G. 1951
The First Waggons and Carts from the Tigris to the Severn. Proceedings of
the Prehistoric Society 17, 177–194.
CHILDE, V. G. 1954
The Diffusion of Wheeled Vehicles. Ethnographisch-Archäologische
Zeitschrift 2, 1–17.
COSTEA, F. – SZÉKELY, ZS. 2011
Aspect of the Ritual Life of the Wietenberg Culture. Miniature religious
shrines from Racoş, Transylvania, 107–113. In: S. Bereczki – R. E. Németh –
B. Rezi (eds), Bronze Age Rites and Rituals in the Carpathian Basin. Editura
MEGA, Târgu Mureş.
CRAIG, O. E. – CHAPMAN, J. – FIGLER, A. – PATAY, P. – TAYLOR, G. –
COLLINS, M. J. 2003
‘Milk jugs’ and other Myths of the Copper Age of Central Europe. European
Journal of Archaeology 6, 251–65.

116
ČUFAR, K. – KROMER, B. – TOLA, T. – VELUŠČEK, A. 2010
Dating of 4th millennium BC pile-dwellings on Ljubljansko barje, Slovenija.
Journal of Archaeological Science 37, 2031–2039.
CUCUTENI TRYPILLIA 2008
Stratulat, L. (ed.), Cucuteni Trypillia: A Great Civilization of Old Europe.
Palazzo della Cancelaria, Rome–Vatican 16 September – 31 October 2008.
“Cucuteni pentru Mileniul III Foundation & Hers Consulting Group, Rome.
DANI, J. 2005
The Pocsaj Area in the Bronze Age. In: E. Gál – I. Juhász – P. Sümegi
(eds), Environmental archaeology in north-eastern Hungary. 301–308.
Archaeological Intstitue of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest.
Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 19.
DANI, J. in print
The Middle Bronze Age fortifi ed settlements of the Berettyó Valley. In:
M. Jaeger – J. Czebreszuk – K. P. Fischl (eds), Open Society. Contact and
Exchange in the Context of Bronze Age Defensive Settlements in Central
Europe. Proceedings of the EAA session (15th Annual Meeting, Riva del Garda,
2009). Studia nad pradziejami Europy Środkowej/Studien zur Archäologie in
Ostmitteleuropa, Poznań.
DĂNILĂ, S. 1971
Săpaturile archeologice din 1962 de la Bistriţa. Sesiunea de comunicări
ştiinţifi ce a Muzeelor de Istorie. Decembrie 1964. Vol. 1. 151–162.
DIETRICH, O. 2010
Tönerne Distanzplatten – Ein Beitrag zur Tracht der Wietenbergkultur. Studii
şi Cercetări de Istorie Veche şi Archeologie 61, 161–170.
DINU, M. 1981
Clay Models of Wheels discovered in Copper Age Cultures of Old Europe
Mid-Fifth Millenium B.C. The Journal of Indo-European Studies 9, 1–14.
DOMONKOS, J. 1908
A Lopós-halom (Arad m.). Archaeologiai Értesítő Új f. 28, 55–78.
DUERR, J. 2007
Zum Beginn der Milchnutzung in Mitteleuropa. Ethnographisch-
Archäologische Zeitschrift 48, 335–73.
DUMITRESCU, V. 1974
Arta prehistorică în România. Editura Meridiane. Bucureşti.

117
DURMAN, A. 1988
The Vučedol Culture. In: A. Durman (ed.), Vučedol. Three thousand years B.C.
Catalogue of the exposition 21. 07–31.08.1988. Muzejski dokumentacioni
centar, Zagreb.
ECSEDY, I. 1982
Későrézkori leletek Boglárlelléről. – Late Copper Age fi nds from Boglárlelle.
Janus Pannonius Múzeum Évkönyve 26, 73–95.
EIBL, F. 2009
Zur anthropomorphen und zoomorphen Plastik der Bayerischen Gruppe der
Stichbandkeramik und der Gruppe Oberlauterbach, 81–101. In: V. Becker –
M. Thomas – A. Wolf-Schuler (eds), Zeiten, Kulturen, Systeme. Gedenkschrift
für Jan Lichardus. Beier & Beran, Langenweißbach.
ELIADE, M. 1999
Misztikus születések. Európa, Budapest (after Naissances mystiques. Essai
sur quelques types d’initiation. Edition Gallimard 1959).
EVERSHED, R. P. – PAYNE, S. – SHERRATT, A. G. – COPLEY, M. –
COOLIDGE, J. – UREM-KOTSU, D. – KOSTAS, K. – ÖZDOĞAN, M. –
ÖZDOĞAN, A. – NIEUWENHUYSEN, O. – AKKERMANS, P. M. –
BAILEY, D. – ANDAESCU, R.-R. – CAMPBELL, S. – FARID, S. – HODDER, I. –
YALMAN, N. – ÖZBAŞARAN, M. – BYCAKY, E. – GARFINKEL, Y. –
LEVY, T. – BURTON, M. M. 2008
Earliest date for milk use in the Near East and southern Europe linked to
cattle herding. Nature 455, 528–31.
FANSA, M. – BURMEISTER, S. 2004 (eds)
Rad und Wagen. Der Ursprung einer Innovation; Wagen im Vorderen Orient
und Europa. Austellung vom 28. März bis 11. Juli 2004. Verlag Philipp von
Zabern, Mainz am Rhein. Beiheft der Archäologische Mitteilungen aus
Nordwestdeutschland 40.
FARKAŠ, Z. 2010
Rectangular vessels (wagon models) of the Boleráz group from Pezinok
and Chorvátsky grob. In: J. Šuteková – P. Pavúk – P. Kalábková – B. Kovár
(eds), Panta rhei. Studies on the Chronology and Cultural Development of
South-Eastern and Central Europe in earlier Prehistory. Presented to Juraj
Pavúk on the Occasion of his 75th Birthday. 435–447. Comenius University
in Bratislava and Archaeological centre, Olomouc, Bratislava.

118
FEDELE, F. 2006
La traction animale au Val Camonica et en Valteline pendant le néolthique
et le Chalcolithique (Italie). In: PREMIERS CHARIOTS, PREMIERS ARAIRES
47–61.
FETTICH, N. 1969
Újabb adatok az őskori kocsihoz a Kárpát-medencében. Ethnographia 90,
29–71.
FILIP, J. 1966
Enzyklopädische Handbuch zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte Europas. I.
Academia, Prague.
FOLTINY, S. 1959
The Oldest Representations of Wheeled Vehicles in Central and Southeastern
Europe. American Journal of Archaeology 63, 53–58.
FORNI, G. 2002
Palaeo-soils and Prehistoric Agriculture in Central and Southern Italy. In:
P. Attema – G.-J. Burgers – E. van Joolen – M. van Leusen – B. Mater (eds),
New Developments in Italian Landscape Archaeology. Proceedings of a
three-day conference held at the University of Groningen. April 13–15. 2000.
196–199. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1091.
GANDERT, O.-F. 1966
Zur Frage der Rindenanschirrung im Neolithikum. Jahrbuch des Römisch-
Germanisches Zentralmuseum Mainz 11, 34–56.
GHETIE, B. – MATEESCO, N. 1971
Utilisation des bovins à la traction dans la phase plus récente de la civilisation
Vădastra. In: Actes du VIIe Congrès International des Sciences Préhistoriques
et Protohistoriques, Prague, 21–27 août 1966. Tome 2, 1312–1313.
GIMBUTAS, M. 1991
The Civilisation of the Goddess. HarperCollins Publishers, San Francisco.
GREENFIELD, J. H. 2010
The Secondary Products Revolution: the past, the present and the future.
World Archaeology 42/1, 29–54.

119
GREENFIELD, H. J. – CHAPMAN, J. – CLASON, A. T. – GILBERT, A. S. –
HESSE, B. – MILISAUSKAS, S. 1988
The Origins of Milk and Wool Production in the Old World: A Zoo-
archaeological Perspective from the Central Balkans [and Comments].
Current Anthropology 29/4, 573–593.
GUBA, SZ. – SZEVERÉNYI, V. 2007
Bronz Age bird representations from the Carpathian Basin. Communicationes
Archaeologicae Hungariae 75–110.
HÄUSLER, A. 1978
Migration oder autochtone Entwicklung? Ethnographisch-Archäologische
Zeitschrift 19, 243–256.
HÄUSLER, A. 1981
Zu ältesten Geschichte von Rad und Wagen im nordpontischen Raum.
Ethnographisch-Archäologische Zeitschrift 22, 581–647.
HÄUSLER, A. 1984
Neue Belege zur Geschichte von Rad und Wagen im nordpontischen Raum.
Ethnographisch-Archäologische Zeitschrift 24, 629–668.
HÄUSLER, A. 1985
Die Anfänge von Rad und Wagen in der Kulturgeschichte Europas. In:
F. Horst – B. Krüger (eds), Produktivkräfte und Produktionsverhältnisse
121–133. Akademie Verlag, Berlin.
HÄUSLER, A. 1986
Rad und Wagen zwischen Europa und Asien. In: ACHSE, RAD UND WAGEN
140–154.
HÄUSLER, A. 1992
Der Urspung des Wagens in der Diskussion der Gegenwart. Archäologische
Mitteilungen aus Nordwestdeutschland 15, 179–190.
HAYDEN, B. 1991
Terracotta Figures, Figurines and Vase Attachments from Vrokastro, Crete.
Hesperia 60, 103–44.
HONTI, SZ. – KÖLTŐ, L. – NÉMETH, P. 1988
Boglárlelle az őskortól a honfoglalásig. In: A. Laczkó (ed.), Tanulmányok
5–42. Községi Tanács VB., Boglárlelle.

120
HOREDT , K. – SERAPHIN, C. 1971
Die prähistorische Ansiedlung auf dem “Wietenberg” bei Sighişoara–
Schässburg. Rudolf Habelt, Bonn.
HORVÁTH, T. 2006
Állattemetkezések Balatonőszöd–Temetői dűlő Badeni lelőhelyen. – Animal
burials in the Late Copper Age Baden Site: Balatonőszöd–Temetői dűlő.
Somogy Megyei Múzeumok Közleményei 17, 107–152.
HORVÁTH, T. 2009
Új szempontok a szelevény–vadasi kultuszedény kulturális besorolásához és
keltezési problémáihoz. – New aspects of the cultural attribution and dating
of the cult vessel from Szelevény–Vadas. Ősrégészeti Levelek 11, 129–134.
HORVÁTH, T. 2010
Manifestation der Transzendenten in der Badener Siedlung von Balatonőszöd–
Temetői-dűlő – Zeremoniengefässe. Acta Archaeologica Academiae
Scientiarum Hungaricae 61, 1–48.
HORVÁTH, T. 2010a
A szárazföldi szállítás kezdete és hatása a Boleráz/Baden kultúrák életében.
A nyíregyházi Jósa András Múzeum Évkönyve 52, 95–139.
HORVÁTH, T. 2011
A késő rézkor időszaka más szemszögből: tipo-kronológiai megfi gyelések
a Balatonőszöd–Temetői dűlői késő rézkori Boleráz/Baden település
leletanyagán. Gesta 10, 3–135. http://tortenelemszak.uni-miskolc.hu/gesta/
gesta2011.html
HORVÁTH 2011a
Die kulturelle Einordnung und Datierung des Kultgefäßes von Szelevény–
Vadas. Das Altertum 56, 223–230.
HUNGARIAN ARCHAEOLOGY AT THE TURN OF THE MILLENNIUM 2003
Visy Zs. et al. (eds), Hungarian Archaeology at the Turn of the Millennium.
Ministry of National Cultural Heritage – Teleki László Foundation,
Budapest.
ILON, G. 2001
Újabb adat a réz- és bronzkori kocsik Kárpát-medencei történetéhez. Vasi
Szemle 55, 474–485.

121
JAKAB, J. – OLEXÁ, L. – VLADÁR, J. 1999
Ein Kultobjekt der Otomani-Kultur in Nižná Myšľa. Slovenská Archeológia
47, 91–127.
KALEGEROPOULOS, K. 2007
Miniature clay anthropomorphic representations in Greece and Europe through
the Late Mycenaean Period: similarities and differences. In: BETWEEN THE
AEGEAN AND BALTIC SEAS 257–68.
KALICZ, N. 1968
Die Frühbronzezeit in Nordost-Ungarn. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest.
Archaeologia Hungarica 45.
KALICZ, N. 1976
Ein neues kupferzeitliches Wagenmodell aus der Umgebung von Budapest.
Festschrift für R. Pittioni zum siebzigsten Geburstag. Archaeologia Austriaca.
Beiheft 13, 188–202.
KALICZ, N. 1976a
Novaja nahodka modeli povozki epohi eneolita iz okrestnoctej Budapesta. –
Découverte d’un modèle de chariot énéolithique dans les environs de
Budapest. Sovetskaja Arheologija 106–117.
KALICZ, N. – RACZKY, P. 2002
Az újkőkor és a rézkor (Kr. e. 6000–Kr. e. 2800). In: Kovács, T. (ed.), Kelet és
Nyugat határán. A magyar föld népeinek története Kr. e. 400 000–Kr. u. 804.
31–46. A Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum régészeti kiállításának vezetője. Helikon
Kiadó, Budapest.
KIRTCHO, L. B. 2009
The earliest Wheeled Transport in Southwestern Central Asia: new Finds from
Altyn-Depe. Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthtropolgy of Eurasia 37, 25–33.
KISS, V. 2009
A bronzkori kerámia-készlet változásairól (A mészbetétes kerámia kultúrája
tipológiai vázlata) – Über die Veränderung der bronzezeitlichen Keramik-
Inventare (Typologischer Abriß der Inkrustierten Keramik). Tisicum 19, 155–
174.
KOHL, P. 2009
The Making of Bronze Age Eurasia. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Cambridge World Archaeology.

122
KOÓS, J. 2009
Vatta–Dobogó. In: Kisfaludi, J. (ed.), Régészeti Kutatások Magyar-
országon – Archaeological Investigations in Hungary 2009. 379–380.
Kulturális Örökségvédelmi Hivatal, Budapest.
KOREK, J. 1951
Ein Gräberfeld der Badener Kultur bei Alsónémedi. Acta Archaeologica
Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 1, 35–79.
KOREK, J. 1968
Eine Siedlung der spätbadener Kultur in Salgótarján–Pécskő. Acta
Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 20, 37–58.
KOREK, J. 1973
Der älteste Wagenfund Europas. Helms-Museum. Hamburgische Museum
für Vor- und Frühgeschichte, Hamburg.
KOREK, J. 1984
Ásatások Szigetcsép–Tangazdaság lelőhelyen I. A későrézkori település
leletei. – Ausgrabungen auf dem Fundort Szigetcsép–Tangazdaság I. –
Funde der spätkupferzeitlichen Siedlung. Communicationes Archaeologicae
Hungariae, 5–30.
KOVÁCS, T. 1972
Bronzkori harangszoknyás szobrok a Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum
gyűjteményében. – Bronze Age bell-skirted statuettes in the collection of the
Hungarian National Museum. Archaeologiai Értesítő 99, 47–52.
KOVÁCS, T. 1977
The Bronze Age in Hungary. Corvina, Budapest. Hereditas.
KOVÁCS, T. 1992
Glaubenwelt und Kunst. In: BRONZEZEIT IN UNGARN 76–82.
KOVÁCS, T. 1994
Les croyances et l’art fi guratif. In: LE BEL AGE 76–82.
KOVÁCS, T. 2006
Bisher unbekannte Kupfer- und Bronzezeitliche Wagenmodelle aus Ungarn.
Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 57, 35–45.
KŐVÁRI, K. 2010
Late Copper Age vessel with cattle head decoration from Vác. Acta
Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 61, 381–399.

123
KÖVECSES VARGA, E. 2010
Kocsimodell-töredékek Esztergom–Szentkirályról. In: S. Lázár – E. Tari (eds),
Tanulmánykötet Horváth István 70 éves születésnapjára. 61–71. Esztergom.
KRUK, J. – MILISAUSKAS, S. 1978
A Neolithic Settlement in Southeastern Poland. Archaeology 31, 44–52.
KRUK, J. – MILISAUSKAS, S. 1981
Chronology of Funnel Beaker, Baden-like, and Lublin-Volynian Settlements
at Bronocice, Poland. Germania 59, 1–19.
KRUK, J. – MILISAUSKAS, S. 1982
Die Wagendarstellung auf einem Trichterbecher aus Bronocice in Polen.
Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 12, 141–144.
KRUK, J. – MILISAUSKAS, S. 1991
Utilization of cattle for traction during the later Neolithic in southeastern
Poland. Antiquity 65, 562–566.
KULAKOĞLU, F. 2003
Recently discovered bronze wagon models from Şanliurfa, Southeastern
Anatolia. Anatolia 24, 63–77.
KUZ’MINA, E. F. 2007
The Origin of the Indo-Iranians. Brill, Leiden. Leiden Indo-European
Etymological Dictionary Series Vol. 3.
LE BEL AGE 1994
Le Bel Age du Bronze en Hongrie. Catalogue de l’exposition, Musée
Archéologique de la Ville Dijon, du 19 mars au 16 mai 1994. (Dir. sc. et
conception I. Bóna.) Centre Européen d’Archéologie du Mont Beuvray,
Pytheas Éditions.
LITTAUER, M. A. – CROUWEL, J. H. 1974
Terracotta Models as Evidence for Vehicles with Tilts in the Ancient Near
East. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 40, 20–36.
LITTAUER, M. A. – CROUWEL, J. H. 1979
Wheeled Vehicles and Ridden Animals in the Ancient Near East. Brill,
Leiden.
LITTAUER, M. A. – CROUWEL, J. H. 1996
The origins of the true chariot. Antiquity 70, 934–939.

124
LITTAUER, M. A. – CROUWEL, J. H. 2002
P. Raulwing (ed.), Selected Writings on Chariots, other Early Vehicles, Riding
and Harness. Brill, Leiden. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 6.
LOUWE KOOIJMANS, L. P. 2006
Les débuts de la traction animale aux Pays-Bas et ses conséquences. In:
PREMIERS CHARIOTS, PREMIERS ARAIRES 191–206.
MAKKAY, J. 1963
Adatok a péceli (badeni) kultúra vallásos elképzeléseihez. – Data to the
religious beliefs of the Pécel (Baden) Culture. Archaeologiai Értesítő 90,
1–14.
MAKKAY, J. 1965
What was the Copper Age Clay Wagon model of Budakalász? Alba Regia
4–5, 11–15.
MAKKAY, J. 2004
Vésztő–Mágor. Ásatás a szülőföldön. Békés Megyei Múzeumok
Igazgatósága. Békéscsaba.
MALČEK, R. 2010
Zvieracia plastika badenskej kultúry z Lieskovca. Zborník Slovenského
Národného Múzea 104, 11–15. Archeológia 20.
MARAN, J. 1998
Die Badener Kultur und der ägäisch-anatolische Bereich. Ein Neubewertung
eines alten Forschungs-problems. Germania 76, 497–525.
MARAN, J. 1998a
Kulturwandel auf dem griechischen Festland und den Kykladen im späten 3.
Jahrtausend v. Chr. Studien zu den kulturellen Verhältnissen in Südosteuropa
und dem zentralen sowie östlichen Mittelmeerraum in der späten Kupfer-
und frühen Bronzezeit. Rudolf Habelt, Bonn. Universitätsforschungen zur
Prähistorischen Archäologie 53.
MARAN, J. 2004
Kulturkontakte und Wege der Ausbreitung der Wagentechnologie im 4.
Jahrtausend v. Chr. In: FANSA–BURMEISTER 2004, 429–42.
MÁTHÉ, M. 1984
Preliminary report on the 1977–1982 excavations at the Neolithic and
Bronze Age settlement of Berettyóújfalu–Herpály. Part II. Bronze Age. Acta
Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 36, 137–159.

125
MÁTHÉ, M. 1991
Polgár–Kenderföldek, Kis-Csőszhalom. Régészeti Füzetek Ser. I. 43, 13.
MATUSCHIK, I. 2006
Invention et diffusion de la roue dans l’Ancien Monde: l’apport de
l’iconographie. In: PREMIERS CHARIOTS, PREMIERS ARAIRES 279–297.
MESTERHÁZY, K. 1976
Agyag kocsimodell Pocsajról. – Clay Cart Model from Pocsaj. Archaeologiai
Értesítő 103, 223–229.
MISCHKA, D. 2010
Flintbek LA 3, biography of a monument. www.jungsteinSITE.de.article,
accessed on 20.12.2010.
MOOREY, P. R. S. 1986
The emergence of the light, horse-drawn chariot in the Near-East c. 2000–
1500 B. C. World Archaeology 18/2, 196–215.
NADLER, M. 2002
Anatolische Impressionen. In: RAD UND WAGEN 93–98.
NAGEL, W. 1966
Der mesopotamische Streitwagen und seine Entwicklung im ostmediterranen
Bereich. Bruno Hessling Verlag, Berlin. Berliner Beiträge zur Vor- und
Frühgeschichte 10.
NAGEL, W. 1986
Die Entwicklung des Wagens im frühen Vorderasien. In: ACHSE, RAD UND
WAGEN 9–34.
NAGEL, W. 1992
Die Wagentypen des zentral-vorderasiatischen Frühdynastikums und der
Bremsbügel. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Nordwestdeutschland 15,
167–178.
NASHEF, K. 1992
Archaeology in Iraq. American Journal of Archaeology 96/2, 301–23.
NĔMEJCOVÁ-PAVÚKOVÁ, V. 1973
Zu Ursprung und Chronologie der Boleráz-Gruppe. In: B. Chropovský (ed.),
Symposium über die Entstehung und Chronologie der Badener Kultur. 297–
316. Verlag der Slowakischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Bratislava.

126
NĔMEJCOVÁ-PAVÚKOVÁ, V. – BÁRTA, J. 1977
Äneolitische Siedlung der Boleráz-Gruppe in Radošina. Slovenská
Archeológia 25, 433–447.
NEUGEBAUER, J.-W, 1979
Die Stellung der Věteřov-Kultur bzw. ihrer Böheimkircher Gruppe am
Übergang von der frühen zur mittleren Bronzezeit Niederösterreichs.
Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 9, 35–52.
NEVIZÁNSKY, G. 2009
Zvieracia plastika badenskej kultúry zo Stránskej. – Zoomorphe Plastik der
Badener Kultur aus Stránska. Zborník Slovenského Národného Múzea 103,
17–36. Archeológia 19.
OLEXA, L. 1983
Sídliská a pohrebiská z doby bronzovej v Nižnej Myšľi. – Siedlungen und
Gräberfeld aus der Bronzezeit in Nižná Myšľa. Archeologické Rozhledy 35,
122–129.
OLEXA, L. 1996
Nižná Myšľa v dobe bronzovej. Nižná Myšľa Fundplatz Várhegy. Siedlungen
und Gräberfeld aus der Bronzezeit. Ergebnisse der archäologischen
Ausgrabungen 1977–1995. Collegium Myssle, Košice.
OLEXA, L. 2003
Nižná Myšľa. Osada a pohrebisko z doby bronzovej. – Nižná Myšľa. Siedlung
und Gräberfeld aus der Bronzezeit. Archeologický Ústav Slovenskej
Akadémie Vied, Nitra, Košice. Archeologické pamätníky Slovenská 7.
OLEXA, L. – PITORÁK, M. 2004
Parohové bočnice zubadiel z Niżnej Myšle. – Geweihtrensen aus Nižná
Myšľa. In: J. Bátora – V. Furmánek – L. Veliačik (eds), Einfl üsse und
Kontakte alteuropäischer Kulturen. Festschrift für Jozef Vladár zum 70.
Geburstag. 309–318. Archäologisches Institut der Slowakischen Akademie
der Wissenschaften, Nitra.
ORDENTLICH, I. – CHIDIOŞAN, N. 1975
Cărucioare miniature din lut aparţinînd culturii Otomani (Epoca bronzului)
de pe territoriul României. Crisia, 28–44.
OROSZ, E. 1901
A “petrisi” őstelep Szamosújvártt [sic!]. Archaeologiai Értesítő Új f. 21,
17–28, 146–163, 220–234.

127
OROSZ, E. 1904
A “petrisi” őstelep Szamosújvártt [sic!]. Archaeologiai Értesítő Új f. 24,
227–234.
OUTRAM, A. K. – STEAR, N. A. – KASPAROV, A. – USMANOVA, E. –
VARFOLOMEEV, V. – EVERSHED, R. P. 2011
Horses for the dead: funerary foodways in Bronze Age Kazakhstan. Antiquity
85, 116–128.
PATAY, P. 1999
A badeni kultúra Ózd-pilinyi csoportjának magaslati telepei. – Höhen-
siedlungen der spätbadener Ózd-Piliny Gruppe. Herman Ottó Múzeum
Évkönyve 37, 45–55.
PETICĂ, M. 1981
Descoperiri Wietenberg la Voivodeni (Jud. Mureş) – Archäologische
Entdeckungen in Voivodeni, Kreis Mureş. Acta Musei Porolissensis 5, 131–
135.
PÉTREQUIN, P. – ARBOGAST, R.-M. – PÉTREQUIN, A.-M. – VAN
WILLIGEN, S. – BAILLY, M. 2006
La traction animale au Néolithique: diversité des documents, diversités des
approches. In: PREMIERS CHARIOTS, PREMIERS ARAIRES 11–20.
PÉTREQUIN, P. – PÉTREQUIN, A.-M. – BAILLY, M. 2006
Vues du Jura Français, les premières tractions animals au Néolihique en
Europe Occidentale. In: PREMIERS CHARIOTS, PREMIERS ARAIRES 361–398.
PIGGOTT, S. 1974
Chariots in the Caucasus and in China. Antiquity 48, 16–24.
PIGGOTT, S. 1978
Chinese chariotry: an outsider’s view. In: P. Denwood (ed.), Arts of the
Eurasian Steppelands 32–51. Percival David Foundation Of Chinese Art,
London,
PIGGOTT, S. 1979
The First Wagons and Carts: twenty-fi ve years later. University of London
Institute of Archaeology Bulletin 16, 3–17.
PIGGOTT, S. 1983
The Earliest Wheeled Transport. From the Atlantic Coast to the Caspian Sea.
Thames and Hudson, London.

128
PIGGOTT, S. 1987
Az európai civilizáció kezdetei [after Ancient Europe from the beginnings of
agriculture to classical antiquity. Edinburgh 1965]. Gondolat, Budapest.
PIGGOTT, S. 1992
Wagon, Chariot and Carriage. Symbol and Status in the History of Transport.
Thames and Hudson, London.
PRAISTORIJA JUGOSLAVENSKIH ZEMALJA 1983
B. Čović (ed.), Praistorija Jugoslavenskih Zemalja. IV. Bronzano doba.
“Svjetlost”, Sarajevo.
PREMIERS CHARIOTS, PREMIERS ARAIRES 2006
P. Pétrequin – R.-M. Arbogast – A. M. Pétrequin – S. Willigen – M. Bailly
(eds), Premiers chariots, premiers araires. La diffusion de la traction animale
en Europe pendant les IVè et IIIè millénaires avant notre ère. CNRS, Paris.
RACZKY, P. – ANDERS, A. 2001
Régészetünk jelentős feltárásai 1975–2000. ELTE Régészettudományi
Intézete, Budapest.
RAD UND WAGEN 2002
J. Königer – M. Mainberger – H. Schlichtherle – M. Vosteen (eds), Rad und
Wagen. Zur Frage früher Transportmittel nördlich der Alpen. Janus Verlag,
Freiburg i Breisgau. Hemmenhofener Skripte 3.
RAD UND WAGEN 2004
M. Fansa (ed.), Rad und Wagen. Der Ursprung einer Innovation. Wagen im
Vorderen Orient und Europa. Sonderausstellung. Landesmuseum für Natur
und Mensch Oldenburg vom 28. März bis 11. Juli 2004. Isensee Verlag,
Oldenburg. Archäologischen Mitteilungen aus Nordwestdeutschland, Heft
41.
RAHMSTORF, L. 2006
Zur Ausbreitung vorderasiatischer Innovationen in die frühbronzezeitliche
Ägäis. Prähistorische Zeitschrift 81, 49–96.
RAJNA, A. 2005
Cegléd, Intézeti- és Bába-dűlő. In. J. Kisfaludi (ed.), Régészeti Kutatások
Magyarországon – Archaeological Investigations in Hungary 2005, 219–220.
Kulturális Örökségvédelmi Hivatal, Budapest.

129
RASSAMAKIN, Y. 1999
The Eneolithic of the Black Sea Steppe: Dynamics of Cultural and
Economic Development 4500–2300 BC. In: M. Levine – Y. Rassamakin –
A. Kislenko – N. Tatarintseva (eds), Late prehistoric exploitation of the
Eurasian steppe. 59–181. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research,
Cambridge.
RAULWING, P. 2000
Horses, Chariots and Indo-Europeans. Foundations and Methods of Chariotry
Research from the Viewpoint of Comparative Indo-European Linguistics.
Archaeolingua, Budapest. Series Minor 13.
REZI KATÓ, G. 2001
Adalékok a középső rézkor hitvilágához. – Contributions to Our Perception
of the Body of Beliefs in the Middle Copper Age. In: J. Dani – Zs. Hajdú –
E. Gy. Nagy – L. Selmeczi (eds), MΏMOΣ I. Fiatal őskoros kutatók I.
összejövetelének konferenciakötete. Debrecen 1997. november 10–13. 119–
127. Debrecen.
ROLLE, R. 1991
Städte auf Rädern. Zur Entwicklung des nomadischen Wohnwagens. In:
R. Rolle – M. Müller-Wille – K. Schietzel (eds), Gold der Steppe. Archäologie
der Ukraine. 185–292. Buch zur Ausstellung: Archäologisches Landesmuseum
der Christian-Albrechts-Universität Schleswig und Archäologisches
Institut der Akademie der Wissenschaften der Ukrainischen SSR Kiev.
(Zusammenarbeit mit dem Seminar für Ur- und Frühgeschichte der Georg-
August-Universität Göttingen und dem Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte.)
Neumünster, Wachholtz.
ROMAN, P. 1977
The Late Copper Age Coţofeni Culture of South-East Europe. Editura
Academiei Republicii Socialiste România, Bucureşti. British Archaeological
Reports, Suppl. 32.
ROSKA, M. 1925
Rapport préliminaire sur les fouilles archéologiques de l’année 1925. Dacia
2, 400–416.
ROSKA, M. 1942
Erdély régészeti repertóriuma. – Thesaurus antiquitatum Transsilvanicum 1.
tom.: Praehistorica. Erdélyi Tudományos Intézet, Kolozsvár.

130
RUOFF, U. 2006
Roues et chars: les plus anciennes découvertes de Suisse. In: PREMIERS
CHARIOTS, PREMIERS ARAIRES 133–140.
RUTTKAY, E. 1995
Boleráz-Gruppe. In: E. Lenneis – C. Neugebauer-Maresch – E. Ruttkay (eds),
Jungsteinzeit im Osten Österreich. 145–160. Verlag Niederösterreichisches
Pressehaus, St. Pölten – Wien. Forschungsberichte zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte
17.
RUTTKAY, E. 2000
Siedlungsfunde der Boleráz-Gruppe aus Wien und dem nordtransdanubischen
Niederösterreich. Fundberichte aus Österreich 38, 609–622.
SCHAUER, P. 1988–1989
Mittelbronzezeitliche Vogelplastik. Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen
Gesellschaft in Wien 118–119, 45–59.
SCHLICHTHERLE, H. 2006
Chemins, roues et chariots: innovations de la fi n du néolithique dans le Sud-
Ouest Allemegne. In: PREMIERS CHARIOTS, PREMIERS ARAIRES 165–178.
SCHLICHTHERLE, H. 2010
Als die ersten Räder rollten. Räder der Jungsteinzeit aus dem Olzreuter Ried
bei Bad Schussenried. Denkmalpfl ege in Baden-Württemberg 3, 140–144.
SCHMIDT, R. R. 1945
Die Burg Vučedol. Hrvatski Državni Archeoložki Muzeum, Zagreb.
SCHUSTER, C. 1996
Despre cărucioarele din lut ars epoca bronzului de pe territoriul României. –
Über die Tonwagenmodelle auf dem Gebiete Rumäniens in der Bronzezeit.
Thraco-Dacica 17, 117–137.
SHERRATT, A.1981
Plough and pastoralism: aspects of the secondary products revolution. In:
I. Hodder – G. Isaac – N. Hammond (eds), Pattern of the Past: Studies in
honour of David Clarke. 261–305. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
SHERRATT, A. 1983
The secondary exploitation of animals in the Old World. World Archaeology
15/1, 90–104.

131
SHERRATT, A. 1997
Economy and Society in prehistoric Europe: Changing Perspectives.
University Press, Edinburgh. Digital version: University Press, Princeton
2004.
SHERRATT, A. 1997a
The secondary exploitation of animals in the Old World (revised from 1983
original). In: SHERRATT 1997, 199–228.
SHERRATT, A. 2003
The Horse and the Wheel: the Dialectics of Change in the Circum-Pontic
Region and Adjacent Areas, 4500–1500 B.C. In: M. Levine – C. Renfrew –
K. Boyle (eds), Prehistoric steppe adaptation and the horse. 233–252.
McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge. McDonald
Institute Monographs.
SHERRATT, A. 2004
Wagen, Pfl ug, Rind: ihre Ausbreitung und Nutzung – Probleme der
Quelleninterpretation. In: FANSA – BURMEISTER 2004, 409–28.
SOPRONI, S. 1954
A budakalászi kocsi [The Wagon of Budakalász]. Folia Archaeologica 6,
29–36.
STRUHÁR, V. 1999
Eneolitický kolektívny hrob z Jaskine pri Liskovej, okr. Ružomberok. –
Kupferzeitlicher kollektivgrab aus der Höhle bei Lisková, Kreis Ružomberok.
In: I. Kuzma (ed.), Otazký neolitu i eneolitu našich Krajín 1998. 203–216.
Archeologický Ústav Slovenskej Akadémie Vied, Nitra.
STRUHÁR, V. – SOJÁK, M. 2009
Liskovská jaskyňa – prehistorické sanktuárium v Chočskom Podhori.
Aragonit 14, 45–50.
ŠTURMS, E. 1955
Die neolithische Plastik im nordischen Kulturkreis. Jahrbuch des Römisch-
Germanischen Zentralmuseums 2, 21–27.
SZABÓ, G. 2009
Pannónia kincse. A mészbetétes edények népének bonyhádi temetője. – Schatz
von Pannonien. Das Gräberfeld der inkrustieten Keramik von Bonyhád. Jazyg
Kutató és Fejlesztő KFT, Szekszárd.

132
SZABÓ, G. – HAJDU, T. 2011
A mészbetétes edények díszítésének szimbolikája a bonyhádi vegyes rítusú
bronzkori temető embertani leleteinek feldolgozása tükrében. – Symbolism
of the ornaments of encrusted pottery in the light of anthropological fi nds
from the Bronze Age mixed-rite cemetery at Bonyhád. Anthropológiai
Közlemények 52, 85–108.
SZATHMÁRI, I. 2007
Úton-útfélen. Az emberi és kereskedelmi kapcsolatok eszközei az őskorban.
In: É. Hoppál (ed.), Végtelen utazás. Utak térben és időben. 20–28. Kiállítás
a Magyar Nemzeti Múzeumban. 2007. október 6. – 2008. január 6. Magyar
Nemzeti Múzeum, Budapest.
SZÉKELY, Z. 1959
Raport preliminar asupra sondajelor executate de muzeul regional din SF.
Gheorghe în anul 1956. – Sondages exécutés en 1956 par le musée régional
de Sfîntul Georghe. Rapport préliminaire. Materiali şi Cercetări Archeologice
5, 231–247.
SZÉKELY, ZS. 1988
Contribuţii la răspîndirea cărucioarelor de lut în epoca bronzului în sud-estul
Transilvaniei. – Contribution to the spreading of clay models of Bronze Age
waggons in Transilvania. Aluta 17–18, 189–196.
SZÉKELY, V. GY. 2010
Amikor az istenek is szekéren utaztak … (Gondolatok egy bronzkori kultikus
tárgy kapcsán). Múzeumőr 8/1, 35–36.
TÁRNOKI, J. 1999
Bronzkori kocsimodell Törökszentmiklós–Terehalomról. – Das bronze-
zeitliche Wagenmodell von Törökszentmiklós–Terehalom. Savaria/Pars
Archaeologica 4/3, 165–175.
TORMA, I. 1972
Die Tierstatuetten der Boleráz Gruppe von Pilismarót–Basaharc. In: Idole.
Prähistorische Keramiken aus Ungarn. Ausstellung des Ungarischen
Nationalmuseums Budapest im Naturhistorischen Museum Wien vom
11, November 1972 bis 21. Jänner 1973. 24–26. Verlag Naturhistorisches
Museum, Wien.

133
TORMA, I. 1973
Die Boleráz Gruppe in Ungarn. In: B. Chropovský (ed.), Symposium über
die Entstehung und Chronologie der Badener Kultur. 483–512. Verlag der
Slowakischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Bratislava.
URSULESCU, N. – BOGHIAN, D. – COTIUGĂ, V. 2005
Problèmes de la culture Précucuteni à la lumière des recherches de Târgu
Frumos (Dép. de Iaşi). In: V. Spinei – C.-M. Lazarovici – D. Monah (eds),
Scripta praehistorica. Miscellanea in honorem nonagenarii magistri Mircea
Petrescu-Dîmboviţa oblata. 217–260. Trinitas, Iaşi.
VASIĆ, R. 2004
The Dupljaja cart again. In: P. Rogozea – V. Cedică (eds), Festschrift für
Florin Medeleţ. 155–162. Editura Minton, Timişoara. Bibliotheca historica et
archaeologica Banatica 32.
VELUŠČEK, A. 2002
Ostanki eneolitskega voza z Ljubljanskega barja. – The remains of an
eneolithic cart from the Ljubljana Marshes. Archeološki Vestnik 53, 51–57.
VELUŠČEK, A. 2006
Une roue et un essieu néolithiques dans le marais de Ljubljana (Slovénie) In:
PREMIERS CHARIOTS, PREMIERS ARAIRES 39–45.
VIGNE, J.-D. – HELMER, D. 2007
Was milk a “secondary product” in the Old World Neolithisation process? Its
role in the domestication of cattle, sheep and goats. Anthropozoologica 42,
9–40.
VOSTEEN, M. 1996
Unter die Räder gekommen. Untersuchungen zu Sherratts “Secondary
products revolution”. Holos Verlag, Bonn. Archäologische Berichte 7.
VOSTEEN, M. 1998
Zum Gebrauch der ältesten Wagen in Mitteleuropa. In: B. Fritsch –
M. Maute – J. M. Matuschik – C. Wolf (eds), Tradition und Innovation.
Prähistorische Archäologie als historische Wissenschaft. Festschrift für
Christian Strahm. 107–118. Verlag Marie Leidorf, Rahden.

134
VOSTEEN, M. 1999
Urgeschichtliche Wagen in Mitteleuropa. Eine ärchäologische und
religionswissenschaftliche Untersuchung neolithischer bis hallstattzeitlicher
Befunde. Verlag Marie Leidorf, Rahden. Freiburger Archäologische Studien
Bd. 3.
WEGZEITEN 2004
WegZeiten. Archäologie und Strassenbau. Begleitbuch zur Ausstellung des
Bundesdenkmalamtes, Abteilung für Bodendenkmale in Kooperation mit
der Niederösterreichischen Landesregierung, Gruppe Straße in der Kartause
Mauerbach, 20. Mai bis 30. September 2004. Wien. Fundberichte aus
Österreich Materialhefte Reihe A. Sonderheft 1.
WOYTOWITSCH, E. 1978
Die Wagen der Bronze- und frühen Eisenzeit in Italien. C. H. Beck’sche
Verlagsbuchhandlung, München. Prähistorische Bronzefunde Abt. 17. Bd. 1.
WOYTOWITSCH, E. 1995
Die Wagen der Schweiz in der europäischen Bronzezeit. Helvetia
Archaeologica 26, 83–351.
ZICH, B. 1992
Frühneolitische Karrenspuren in Flintbek. Archäologie in Deutschland 8,
58.
ZICH, B. 1993
Die Ausgrabungen chronisch gefährdeter Hügelgräber der Stein- und
Bronzezeit in Flintbek, Kreis Rendsburg-Eckenhörde. Ein Vorbericht. Offa
49–50, 15–31.
ZICH, B. 2006
Ornières de véhicules néolithiques à Flintbek (Allemagne du Nord) In:
PREMIERS CHARIOTS, PREMIERS ARAIRES 215–224.

135
Appendix.
Most important data of the sites shown on the map in Fig. 37.
Site Number
on map Country Find Cultural
context/Date* Literature
Abamor 147 Turkey
wagon model and
free-standing
animal fi gurines
late 3rd–early 2nd
millennium KULAKOĞLU 2003, Figs 2, 7.
Adunaţii Copăceni 141 Romania wagon model (?) Middle Bronze
Age SCHUSTER 1996, 127.
Aiton, “Locul lui
poţu” (Ajton) 89 Romania wagon model Wietenberg
culture
BOROFFKA 1994, Taf. 1. 5;
SCHUSTER 1996, 111, note 72.
Algyógy see
Geoagiu
Alsónémedi 59 Hungary human and cattle
burials Baden culture KOREK 1951.
Alsóvadász-
Várdomb 20 Hungary wagon model Hatvan culture KALICZ 1968, Taf. CXIII. 2.
Altyn-Depe 143 Turkmenistan wagon model late 4th–early 3rd
millennium
BOROFFKA 2004, Fig. 11;
KIRTCHO 2009, 30.
Arslantepe 144 Turkey clay wheel 3374+/-30 (Late
Uruk period) BAKKER et al. 1999, 781.
Bădăcin
(Szilágybadacsony) 78 Romania wagon model Coţofeni III BĂCUEŢ 1998, Pl. 1.
Balatonberény 100 Hungary wagon model Boleráz period BONDÁR 2004, Fig. 5. 1, Fig. 6.
Balatonőszöd 98 Hungary animal fi gurine
attached to a vessel Baden culture HORVÁTH 2010, 19, Abb. 7. 1,
HORVÁTH 2010a, Fig. 10. 3.
Baraolţ (Barót) 125 Romania wagon model Wietenberg
culture
BOROFFKA 1994, 164. Taf..8.8;
SCHUSTER 1996, Pl. 3.1.
Bărboasa 124 Romania wagon model Monteoru culture
CĂPITANU – FLORESCU 1969,
Fig. 7; SCHUSTER 1996,
Pl. 5. 1.
Békés 95 Hungary wagon model (?) Gyulavarsánd
culture BÓNA 1960, 7.
Berea 42 Romania human fi gurine Nir (Nyírség)
culture BADER 1978, Pl. 8. 7.
Berettyóújfalu
64–66
Hungary wagon model Ottomány culture MÁTHÉ 1984, 148.
Berettyóújfalu Hungary wagon model Ottomány culture MÁTHÉ 1984, Pl. 6. 1a–c;
BONDÁR 1992, Fig. 8. 3.
Berettyóújfalu Hungary wagon model Ottomány culture MÁTHÉ 1984, 148.
Berettyószentmárton
67–68
Hungary wagon model Gyulavarsánd
culture DANI in print.
Berettyószentmárton Hungary wagon model Gyulavarsánd
culture
BRONZEZEIT IN UNGARN1992,
Cat. no. 330; LE BEL AGE
1994, Cat. no. 330.
* The cultural contexts and the dates are based on the data published in the literature. The dates are based
on different dating methods (dendrochronology and radiocarbon) performed on samples from a diverse
range of materials (bone, wood, charcoal, etc.) and they were calibrated using different techniques.

136
Site Number
on map Country Find Cultural
context/Date Literature
Bistriţa (Beszterce) 85 Romania wagon model Wietenberg
culture
DĂNILĂ 1971, Abb. 2. 3;
BOROFFKA 1994, 167;
SCHUSTER 1996, 118, note 76.
Boineşti (Bujánháza) 41 Romania wagon model
Suciu de Sus
(Felsőszőcs)
culture
SCHUSTER 1996, Pl. 6. 5.
Boglárlelle 99 Hungary wagon model Boleráz period ECSEDY 1982, Fig. 8. 9a–b.
Borinci 134 Croatia wagon model (?) Vučedol culture BAKKER et al. 1999, 788.
Böheimkirchen 22 Austria wagon model Veteřov culture NEUGEBAUER 1979, Abb. 8. 2.
Börzönce 101 Hungary wagon model Somogyvár-
Vinkovci culture BONDÁR 1990, Fig. 5.
Braşov (Brassó) 129 Romania wagon model Wietenberg
culture
BOROFFKA 1994, Taf. 19. 5;
SCHUSTER 1996, Pl. 3. 4.
Brzeżniak 2 Poland bird chariot Late Bronze Age VOSTEEN 1998, Taf. 132, 226.
Bronocice 6 Poland wagon depiction
on vessel
Funnel Beaker
culture
KRUK – MILISAUSKAS 1982,
Abb. 1.
Bucureşti (Bukarest) 140 Romania wagon model (?) Tei culture SCHUSTER 1996, 118, note 59.
Budakalász 38–39 Hungary wagon model Baden culture SOPRONI 1954, Pl. 6. 5.
Budakalász Hungary wagon model Baden culture SOPRONI 1954, Pl. 7.
Bytýn 3 Poland free-standing
animal fi gurine
Funnel Beaker
culture
ŠTURMS 1955, 23. Abb. 1. 4;
VOSTEEN 1999, Taf. CVII. 61.
Cegléd 61 Hungary wagon model Nagyrév culture RAJNA 2005, 219.
Chorvátsky Grob
(Magyargurab) 18 Slovakia wagon model Boleráz period FARKAŠ 2010, Fig. 4.
Ciceu-Corabia
(Csicsóújfalu) 79–80
Romania wagon model Wietenberg
culture
BOROFFKA 1994, Taf. 59. 5;
SCHUSTER 1996, Pl. 10. 1.
Ciceu-Corabia
(Csicsóújfalu) Romania wagon model Wietenberg
culture
BOROFFKA 1994, Taf. 56. 5;
SCHUSTER 1996, Pl. 3. 9.
Cîrna (Maroskarna) 130 Romania human fi gurine Middle Bronze
Age
KOVÁCS 1972, 48. Fig. 2;
KALEGEROPOULUS 2007, Pl.
LXVII. a–b.
Cluj (Kolozsvár) 90 Romania wagon model Wietenberg
culture
BOROFFKA 1994, Taf. 62. 7;
SCHUSTER 1996, Pl. 3. 10.
Corpadea
(Kolozskorpád) 88 Romania wagon model Wietenberg
culture
BOROFFKA 1994, Taf. 63. 9;
SCHUSTER 1996, Pl. 3. 8.
Crivăt 142 Romania wagon model (?) Glina III culture SCHUSTER 1996, 118, note 57.
Cuciulata
(Kucsuláta) 126 Romania wagon model Glina III culture BICHIR 1964, Figs 1–2;
SCHUSTER 1996, Pl. 2. 12.
Dalj (Dálya) 132 Croatia human fi gurine Middle Bronze
Age KOVÁCS 1972, 49, Fig. 4.
Derşida
(Kisderzsida)
71–77
Romania wagon model Wietenberg
culture CHIDIOŞAN 1980, Taf. 25. 7.
Derşida
(Kisderzsida) Romania wagon model Wietenberg
culture CHIDIOŞAN 1980, Taf. 25. 9.
Derşida
(Kisderzsida) Romania wagon model Wietenberg
culture CHIDIOŞAN 1980, Taf. 25. 2.

137
Site Number
on map Country Find Cultural
context/Date Literature
Derşida
(Kisderzsida)
71–77
Romania wagon model Wietenberg
culture CHIDIOŞAN 1980, Taf. 25. 4.
Derşida
(Kisderzsida) Romania wagon model Wietenberg
culture CHIDIOŞAN 1980, Taf. 25. 1.
Derşida
(Kisderzsida) Romania wagon model Wietenberg
culture CHIDIOŞAN 1980, Taf. 25. 3.
Derşida
(Kisderzsida) Romania wagon model Wietenberg
culture CHIDIOŞAN 1980, Taf. 25. 5.
Dieburg (?) 5 Germany free-standing
animal fi gurine
late 4th–early 3rd
millennium (?) MATUSCHIK 2006, Fig. 8. 1.
Dupljaja
137–138
Serbia wagon model Žuto Brdo culture MILLEKER 1930, Pl. 8; VASIĆ
2004, Fig. 1.
Dupljaja Serbia wagon model Žuto Brdo culture MILLEKER 1930, Pl. 8; VASIĆ
2004, Fig. 2.
Esztergom
32–34
Hungary wagon model Baden culture KÖVECSES VARGA 2010, Fig.
13. 1.
Esztergom Hungary wagon model Baden culture KÖVECSES VARGA 2010, Fig.
13. 2.
Esztergom Hungary wagon model Baden culture KÖVECSES VARGA 2010, Fig.
13. 3.
Feldioara (Földvár)
127–128
Romania wagon model Wietenberg
culture BOROFFKA 1994, Taf. 67. 1.
Feldioara (Földvár) Romania wagon model Wietenberg
culture
BOROFFKA 1994, Taf. 76. 1;
SCHUSTER 1996, Pl. 3. 3.
Flintbek 1 Germany wheel ruts
Funnel Beaker
culture, 3460–
3385 cal. BC
ZICH 1992, 1993, 2006;
MISCHKA 2010.
Füzesabony 40 Hungary wagon model Late Hatvan
culture KOVÁCS 2006, Abb. 4.
Geoagiu/Geoagiul
de Jos (Algyógy) 131 Romania wagon model Wietenberg
culture
ROSKA 1942, Fig. 4;
BOROFFKA 1994, 167.
Gherla “Petriş”
(Szamosújvár)
81–83
Romania wagon model Wietenberg
culture
OROSZ 1901; SCHUSTER 1996,
Pl. 3. 6.
Gherla “Petriş”
(Szamosújvár) Romania wagon model Wietenberg
culture OROSZ 1901, Fig. 111.
Gherla “Petriş”
(Szamosújvár) Romania wagon model Wietenberg
culture
OROSZ 1901, 123; BÓNA 1960,
5–6; SCHUSTER 1996, Pl. 3. 6.
Jebel Aruda/Gebel
Aruda 148 Syria clay wheel Late Uruk period BAKKER et al. 1999, 781.
Gyulavarsánd see
Vărşand
Jigodin (Zsögöd) 123 Romania
animal fi gurine
attached to a
wagon model
Wietenberg
culture
SZÉKELY 1959, Fig. 2; BICHIR
1964, 82.
Kánya 97 Hungary free-standing
animal fi gurine Baden culture BANNER 1956, Taf. 21. 15.
Kaposvár 103 Hungary wagon model Boleráz period BONDÁR 2012, Fig. 1.
Karolina 8 Ukraine wagon model Tripolye B2–C1 MATUSCHIK 2006, 280, Fig. 2.

138
Site Number
on map Country Find Cultural
context/Date Literature
Krežnica-Jara 4 Poland
animal fi gurine
attached to a
wagon model
Funnel Beaker
culture
DINU 1981, Fig. 9. 1; VOSTEEN
1999, Taf. CVII. 62.
Kültepe 145 Turkey wagon depiction
on a cylinder seal ca. 2000–1850 BC LITTAUER – CROUWEL 1996,
Fig. 2.
Lechinţa “Podei”
(Maroslekence) 106 Romania wagon model Wietenberg
culture
BICHIR 1964, Fig. 4. 3;
SCHUSTER 1996, Pl. 3.7.
Lieskovec
(Újmogyoród) 13 Slovakia free-standing
animal fi gurine Baden culture MALČEK 2010, Tab. 1–2.
Lisková Cave
(Liszkófalu) 9 Slovakia free-standing
animal fi gurine
Middle Copper
Age
STRUHÁR 1999, Tab. II. 10;
BONDÁR 2004, Fig. 8. 5;
STRUHÁR – SOJÁK 2009, Fig. 7.
Ljubljana marshes
(Stara gnajme) 102 Slovenia wooden wheel and
axle
4th millennium
BC, the period
between the Retz–
Gajary and the
Baden cultures,
3600–3332 BC
VELUŠČEK 2002, 2006.
Moha 58 Hungary wagon model Boleráz period KOVÁCS 2006, Abb. 1.
Mödling 23 Austria wagon model Boleráz period RUTTKAY 1995, Abb. 7. 3.
Nemesnádudvar 104 Hungary wagon model Nagyrév culture V. SZÉKELY 2010; BONDÁR –
SZÉKELY 2011. Fig. 3.
Nemirov 7 Ukraine wagon model Tripolye B2–C1 MATUSCHIK 2006, 280, Fig. 2.
Nižná Myšľa
(Alsómislye) 11–12
Slovakia wagon model Late Füzesabony
culture
OLEXA 1983, Obr. 1. 7;
OLEXÁ – PITORÁK 2004, Obr. 3.
Nižná Myšľa
(Alsómislye) Slovakia wagon model Late Füzesabony
culture
OLEXÁ – PITORÁK 2004,
Obr. 2.
Novaj 28 Hungary wagon model Ottomány culture
BÓNA 1960. Fig. 3; FETTICH
1969, Pl. 5. 1; SCHUSTER 1996,
Pl. 7. 1.
Oarţa de Sus
(Felsővárca) 46–47
Romania wagon model (?) Wietenberg
culture BOROFFKA 1994, 167.
Oarţa de Sus
(Felsővárca) Romania wagon model (?) Wietenberg
culture BOROFFKA 1994, 167.
Olzreuter Ried 35 Germany wooden wheels
and clay wheel ca. 2897 BC SCHLICHTHERLE 2010.
Otomani (Ottomány)
91–92
Romania wagon model
Otomani
(Ottomány)
culture
BICHIR 1964, Fig. 2. 1.
Otomani (Ottomány) Romania wagon model
Otomani
(Ottomány)
culture
ROSKA 1925, Fig. 3. 4;
BÓNA 1960, 7.
Ózd-Kőaljatető19 Hungary clay wheel Baden culture (?) BANNER 1956, Taf. 75. 8.
Palaikastro 149 Greece wagon model Copper Age BÓNA 1960, Fig. 3.
Pezinok (Bazin) 16–17 Slovakia wagon model Boleráz period FARKAŠ 2010, Fig. 2.
Pezinok (Bazin) Slovakia wagon model Boleráz period FARKAŠ 2010, Fig. 3.
Piliny 24 Hungary free-standing
animal fi gurine Baden culture PATAY 1999, 53, Fig. 7.

139
Site Number
on map Country Find Cultural
context/Date Literature
Pilismarót 31 Hungary wagon model Boleráz period
TORMA 1972, Abb. 11; TORMA
1973, Abb. 5. 2; KALICZ –
RACZKY 2002, Fig. 21.
Pir (Pér) 37 Romania wagon model (?)
Otomani
(Ottomány)
culture
BÓNA 1994, 74.
Pleissing 10 Austria wagon model Boleráz period RUTTKAY 2000, Taf. 5. 63.
Pocsaj 69 Hungary wagon model Gyulavarsánd
culture MESTERHÁZY 1976, Figs 1–5.
Polgár 27 Hungary wagon model Hatvan culture RACZKY – ANDERS 2000,
Fig. 13.
Racoş–Piatra-
Detunată122 Romania
animal fi gurine
attached to a
wagon model
Wietenberg
culture
COSTEA – SZÉKELY 2011,
Pl. 3. 6.
Radošina (Radosna) 14 Slovakia wagon model Boleráz period NĚMEJCOVÁ-PAVÚKOVÁ –
BÁRTA 1977, Abb. 7.
Rakovec 21 Ukraine wagon model Tripolye B2–C1 MATUSCHIK 2006, 280, Fig. 2.
Săcuieni
(Székelyhíd) 70 Romania wagon model
Otomani
(Ottomány)
culture
ORDENTLICH – CHIDIOŞAN
1975, Pl. VIII; SCHUSTER
1996, Pl. 7. 3.
Sălacea (Szalacs)
48–56
Romania wagon model
Otomani
(Ottomány)
culture
ORDENTLICH – CHIDIOŞAN
1975, Pl. III. 1–4; SCHUSTER
1996, PL. 7. 9.
Sălacea (Szalacs) Romania wagon model
Otomani
(Ottomány)
culture
ORDENTLICH – CHIDIOŞAN
1975, Pl. V. 1–4; SCHUSTER
1996, Pl. 7. 5.
Sălacea (Szalacs) Romania wagon model
Otomani
(Ottomány)
culture
ORDENTLICH – CHIDIOŞAN
1975, Pl. II. 1–2; SCHUSTER
1996, Pl. 7. 6.
Sălacea (Szalacs) Romania wagon model
Otomani
(Ottomány)
culture
ORDENTLICH – CHIDIOŞAN
1975, Pl. IV. 1–4; SCHUSTER
1996, Pl. 7. 10.
Sălacea (Szalacs) Romania wagon model
Otomani
(Ottomány)
culture
ORDENTLICH – CHIDIOŞAN
1975, Pl. I. 1–4; SCHUSTER
1996, Pl. 7. 4.
Sălacea (Szalacs) Romania wagon model
Otomani
(Ottomány)
culture
ORDENTLICH – CHIDIOŞAN
1975, Pl. II. 1–4; SCHUSTER
1996, Pl. 7. 8.
Sălacea (Szalacs) Romania wagon model
Otomani
(Ottomány)
culture
ORDENTLICH – CHIDIOŞAN
1975, Pl. VI. 1.
Sălacea (Szalacs) Romania wagon model
Otomani
(Ottomány)
culture
ORDENTLICH – CHIDIOŞAN
1975, Pl. VI. 3.
Sălacea (Szalacs) Romania wagon model
Otomani
(Ottomány)
culture
ORDENTLICH – CHIDIOŞAN
1975, Pl. VI. 2.

140
Site Number
on map Country Find Cultural
context/Date Literature
Salgótarján-Pécskő25 Hungary free-standing
animal fi gurine Baden culture KOREK 1968. 57, Taf. XII. 4,
Taf. XIII. 1–7.
Sanislău (Szaniszló) 43 Romania wagon model Nir (Nyírség)
culture
BADER 1978, Pl. VII. 15;
SCHUSTER 1996, Pl. 6. 3.
Satulung-Finteuşul
Mic (Kisfentős) 45 Romania human fi gurine Wietenberg
culture
DUMITRESCU 1974, Fig. 402. 1;
DIETRICH 2010, Taf. 2. 1.
Şieu “Măgheruş”
(Árokalja) 84 Romania wagon model Wietenberg
culture
BOROFFKA 1994, Taf. 127. 4;
SCHUSTER 1996, Pl. 3. 5.
Sighişoara
“Wietenberg”
(Segesvár)
107–121
Romania wagon model Wietenberg
culture
HOREDT – SERAPHIN 1971,
Abb. 39. 6; BOROFFKA 1994,
167.
Sighişoara
“Wietenberg”
(Segesvár)
Romania wagon model Wietenberg
culture
HOREDT – SERAPHIN 1971,
Abb. 39. 9; BOROFFKA 1994,
167.
Sighişoara
“Wietenberg”
(Segesvár)
Romania wagon model Wietenberg
culture
HOREDT – SERAPHIN 1971,
Abb. 17. 27; BOROFFKA 1994,
167.
Sighişoara
“Wietenberg”
(Segesvár)
Romania wagon model Wietenberg
culture
HOREDT – SERAPHIN 1971,
Abb. 39. 1; BOROFFKA 1994,
167.
Sighişoara
“Wietenberg”
(Segesvár)
Romania wagon model Wietenberg
culture
HOREDT – SERAPHIN 1971,
Abb. 39. 2; BOROFFKA 1994,
167.
Sighişoara
“Wietenberg”
(Segesvár)
Romania wagon model Wietenberg
culture
HOREDT – SERAPHIN 1971,
Abb. 39. 4; BOROFFKA 1994,
167.
Sighişoara
“Wietenberg”
(Segesvár)
Romania wagon model Wietenberg
culture
HOREDT – SERAPHIN 1971,
Abb. 39. 10; BOROFFKA 1994,
167.
Sighişoara
“Wietenberg”
(Segesvár)
Romania wagon model Wietenberg
culture
HOREDT – SERAPHIN 1971,
Abb. 39. 12; BOROFFKA 1994,
167.
Sighişoara
“Wietenberg”
(Segesvár)
Romania wagon model Wietenberg
culture
HOREDT – SERAPHIN 1971,
Abb. 39. 13; BOROFFKA 1994,
167.
Sighişoara
“Wietenberg”
(Segesvár)
Romania wagon model Wietenberg
culture
HOREDT – SERAPHIN 1971,
Abb. 39. 14; BOROFFKA 1994,
167.
Sighişoara
“Wietenberg”
(Segesvár)
Romania wagon model Wietenberg
culture
HOREDT – SERAPHIN 1971,
Abb. 39. 15; BOROFFKA 1994,
167.
Sighişoara
“Wietenberg”
(Segesvár)
Romania wagon model Wietenberg
culture
HOREDT – SERAPHIN 1971,
Abb. 39. 16; BOROFFKA 1994,
167.
Sighişoara
“Wietenberg”
(Segesvár)
Romania wagon model Wietenberg
culture
HOREDT – SERAPHIN 1971,
Abb. 39. 5.

141
Site Number
on map Country Find Cultural
context/Date Literature
Sighişoara
“Wietenberg”
(Segesvár)
107–121
Romania wagon model Wietenberg
culture
HOREDT – SERAPHIN 1971,
Abb. 39. 7.
Sighişoara
“Wietenberg”
(Segesvár)
Romania wagon model Wietenberg
culture
SCHROLLER 1933, Pl. 9. 6;
BICHIR 1964, Abb. 4. 2; BÓNA
1960, Fig. 3; FETTICH 1969,
Pl. III. 1; SCHUSTER 1996, Pl.
3.2.
Straubing-
Lerchenhaid 36 Austria animal head from
a vessel
Middle Copper
Age, Stroke
Ornamented
pottery culture
EIBL 2009, Taf. 4. 5.
Stránska (Oldalfala) 15 Slovakia free-standing
animal fi gurine Baden culture NEVIZÁNSKY 2009.
Szalacs see Sălacea
Szamosújvár see
Gherla
Szelevény 96 Hungary
rectangular
vessel (?), wagon
model (?)
Copper Age
FETTICH 1969, 37, Pl. I.
1–3; REZI KATÓ 2001,
120; HORVÁTH 2009, 133;
HORVÁTH 2011a, 229.
Szigetszentmárton 60 Hungary wagon model Baden culture KALICZ 1976, Fig. 3.
Szombathely 57 Hungary clay wheel Middle Copper
Age ILON 2001, 476, Pl. I.
Szurdokpüspöki 29 Hungary human fi gurine Hatvan culture KOVÁCS 1977, Figs 8–9.
Târgu Frumos 86 Romania wagon model Precucuteni
culture
URSULESCU – BOGHIAN –
COTIUGĂ 2005, Fig. 12. 1.
Ţebea (Cebe) 105 Romania clay wheel Coţofeni III BAKKER et al. 1999, 781.
Tepe Gawra 146 Iraq wagon model
late 3rd
millennium
BC (?)
LITTAUER – CROUWEL 1974,
Fig. 2.
Tiream (Terém,
Mezőterém) 44 Romania wagon model Ottomány culture BADER 1978, Pl. 36. 36;
SCHUSTER 1996, Pl. 7. 2.
Tószeg 62 Hungary wagon model (?) Hatvan culture BÓNA 1960, 17.
Törökszentmiklós 63 Hungary wagon model Hatvan culture TÁRNOKI 1999, Pl. 2.
Vác 30 Hungary vessel with bovine
head Boleráz period KŐVÁRI 2010, Figs 3–7.
Vărşand
(Gyulavarsánd) 94 Romania wagon model
Vărşand
(Gyulavarsánd)
culture
BÓNA 1960, Pl. 61, Pl. 62.
4–5, Pl. 63; ORDENTLICH –
CHIDIOŞAN 1975, Pl. VII.
Vatta 26 Hungary wagon model Hatvan culture KOÓS 2009, 573.
Vattina (Versecvát) 135 Serbia human fi gurine Middle Bronze
Age
PRAISTORIJA JUGOSLAVENSKIH
ZEMALJA IV. Pl. 82. 1.
Vésztő93 Hungary wagon model Gyulavarsánd
culture
KOVÁCS 1994, Fig. 38,
Cat. no. 425.
Vinča 139 Serbia human fi gurine Middle Bronze
Age KOVÁCS 1972, 48. Fig. 1.

142
Site Number
on map Country Find Cultural
context/Date Literature
Voivodeni
(Vajdaszentivány) 87 Romania wagon model Wietenberg
culture
PETICĂ 1981, Fig. 8. 2;
BOROFFKA 1994, 167.
Vršac (Versec) 136 Serbia human fi gurine Middle Bronze
Age
PRAISTORIJA JUGOSLAVENSKIH
ZEMALJA IV. Pl. 84. 2, 2a.
Vučedol 133 Croatia clay wheel and
wagon model (?) Vučedol culture DURMAN 1988, Cat. no. 24.
Wietenberg see
Sighişoara

Fig. 37. Map of sites mentioned in the text