ACTA UNIYERS1TAT1S WRATISLAYIENSIS No 2960 Studia Archeologiczne XL Wrocław 2007
MARCIN S. PRZYBYŁA'
I
The issues of the relations betwecn the Lusatian culture and the Middle Dan-ubian Uroficld culture was widely discusscd in archacological literaturę at the end of the first half of 20* cent. (Bukowski 1969: 249-257 - the review of literaturę there). At that time a conviction pen aded. that a supposed expansion of the Lusatian culture to the south played a significant role in the process of forma-tion of umfield type groups in the Danube region. However, the development of the research on the genesis of the Middle Danubian Umfield culture allowed Jiri ftihovsky (1961: 249-250; 1982: 88, 96) to State that this group developed from the local variation of the Tumulus culture, and the influences of the Lusatian cul-Hre played no significant role in that process.
Due to the conviction about the pcrvading role of the Lusatian culture. an at-tempt to find traccs of the influences arriving on this culture’s territory from the wuth was madę in the Polish archacological literaturę comparatively late and to a small extcm. Z. Bukowski (1969: 253). when discussing the issues of the contacts hctwccn the Lusatian and the Velatice culture. limited himself only to enumerat-ngi after J. Rihovsky, a few vesscls typical of the Velatice culture and found in 'he Silesian group territory. In his opinion, their presence may prove that minor ruups of the population pcnctrated sparsely populated borderlands (ibidem).
M. Gedl, in his study on the Lusatian culture in Upper Silesia (1962: 28-29, ■ł), mentioncd three cylinder-neckcd vases with cverted rim from Wojno wice md lizierżysław as well as a double-bodied vessel from Branice (all the sites are loc**ed in the district of Głubczyce), interpreting them as a sign of the influence ,om Bohemia. The same group of finds cnriched by further artefacts - especially
InkUlute of Archacology, Jagieł lonmn Univcrsity, Cracow.