07 Horvath Drasovean Remarks on the Connections Between Banat and the Great Hungarian Plain

8/9/2019 07 Horvath Drasovean Remarks on the Connections Between Banat and the Great Hungarian Plain

1/29


2/29

/ P S

SE

A A, G K, V K,G K and G V. S


3/29

MOMENTS IN TIME

Papers Presented to Pl Raczkyon His 60thBirthday

E

Alexandra Anders and Gabriella Kulcsr

Gbor Kalla, Viktria Kiss and Gbor V. Szab

srgszeti rsasg / Prehistoric SocietyEtvs Lornd University

LHarmattan

B 2013


4/29

English and German text revised by

Lszl Bartosiewicz, Alice M. Choyke, Judith A. Rasson and Magdalna Seleanu (English)Ul Morche and va Pvai (German)

Te publication of this volume was generously supported by

Etvs Lornd University, Faculty o HumanitiesDeutsches Archologisches Institut, Eurasien-Abteilung

srgszeti rsasg / Prehistoric SocietyNra 97 Kf.Archeodata 1998 Bt.

satrs Kf.

Te Authors, 2013 LHarmattan Kiad, 2013

ISBN 978-963-236-346-2ISSN 2063-8930

ypography by

Zsolt Gembela

Cover design

Gbor Vczi and Zsolt Gembela

Printed in Hungary by Robinco Kf.

Director: Pter Kecskemthy


5/29

CONTENTS

Editorial / A szerkesztk elszava ..................................................................................................................14

Publications o Pl Raczky .............................................................................................................................16

Walter Meier-ArendtPl Raczky zum 60. Geburtstag. Ein Vor- undGruwort ........................................................................ 27

E N F M

Krum BacvarovMalak Preslavets Revisited: Te Early Neolithic Burials ..................................................................... 29

Eszter BnffyOn Neolithic Frontiers in the Carpathian Basin .................................................................................. 35

Paolo Biagi Elisabetta StarniniPre-Balkan Platorm Flint in the Early Neolithic Siteso the Carpathian Basin: Its Occurrence and Significance ................................................................. 47

Mihael BudjaPotters and Pots in the MesolithicNeolithic ransormationin Southeastern Europe .............................................................................................................................61

Ivan GatsovLithic Assemblages rom the Area o the North-Western Ponticrom the 9th7th Millennia ........................................................................................................................ 85

M N LBK

Piroska CsengeriFigural Representations rom the Initial Phase o the Alld LinearPottery Culture rom Novajidrny (Hernd Valley, Northeast Hungary) ........................................91

Ferenc Horvth Florin DraoveanRemarks on the Connections between the Banat and the GreatHungarian Plain at the Beginning o the Middle Neolithic(SatchinezAlld Linear PotteryEsztrVina) ................................................................................113

Gbor IlonTe ransdanubian Linear Pottery Culture in County Vas:Recent Finds and Findings ......................................................................................................................133

Eva Lenneis

Beobachtungen zu rhneolithischen Schlitzgruben ..........................................................................147


6/29

ibor MartonLBK Households in ransdanubia: A Case Study .............................................................................. 159

Zsolt Mester Jacques ixierPot lames: Te Neolithic Blade Depot rom Boldogkvralja

(Northeast Hungary) ...............................................................................................................................173

Krisztin OrossRegional raits in the LBK Architecture o ransdanubia ................................................................187

ibor PaluchMaroslele-Panaht, Legel: Data to the Middle NeolithicAnthropomorphic Vessel ....................................................................................................................... 203

Juraj Pavk Zdenk FarkaBeitrag zur Gliederung der lteren Linearkeramik ............................................................................213

Jrg PetraschStandardisierung versus Individualitt?Das Wesen der jungsteinzeitlichen Bestattungssitten ........................................................................ 237

Katalin Sebkwo Ceramic-Covered Burials rom the Middle Neolithico the Carpathian Basin .......................................................................................................................... 249

Peter Stadler Nadezdha KotovaTe Early LBK Site at Brunn am Gebirge, Wololz (56705100 BC):

Locally Established or Founded by Immigrants rom theStarevo erritory? .............................. 259

Gerhard rnkaEin bemerkenswerter Klingenkern aus Szentgl-Radiolarit

von Gro-Schollach im westlichen Niedersterreich ........................................................................ 277

Zsuzsanna M. VirgOn the Anthropomorphic Representations o LPC in Connectionwith Some Recent Finds rom Budapest (Figurines and Vessels with FacialRepresentations) ...................................................................................................................................... 289

L N P-C I W

Judit P. BarnaA Miniature Anthropomorphic Vessel rom the Early Lengyel CultureSite at Sorms-rk-ldek in Southwestern Hungary......................................................................311

John ChapmanFrom Varna to Brittany via Csszhalom Was Tere a Varna Effect? ..................................... 323

Alice M. Choyke Zsuzsanna th

Practice Makes Perect: Quartered Metapodial Awlsin the Late Neolithic o Hungary .......................................................................................................... 337

Contents

6


7/29

Magorzata Kaczanowska Janusz K. KozowskiTe ransition rom the Neolithic to the Copper Age Lithic Industriesin the Northern Carpathian Basin ........................................................................................................ 353

Nndor Kalicz

Siedlungsstruktur und Bestattungen mit Prestigeobjektendes Fundplatzes p-Leb (sdliches Teigebiet, Ungarn) ........................................................... 365

Katalin KovcsLate Neolithic Exchange Networks in the Carpathian Basin ........................................................... 385

Kitti KhlerErgebnisse der anthropologischen Untersuchungen zweiersptneolithischer Bestattungen in Alsnyk ....................................................................................... 401

Johannes Mller Robert Hofmann Nils Mller-Scheeel Knut Rassmann

Neolithische Arbeitsteilung: Spezialisierung in einem ell um 4900 v. Chr. ................................. 407

Zsuzsanna Siklsiraces o Social Inequality and Ritual in the Late Neolithico the Great Hungarian Plain ................................................................................................................ 421

Krisztina Somogyi Zsolt GallinaBesonderes anthropomorphes Ge der Lengyel-Kultur mit doppelterGesichts- und Menschendarstellung in Alsnyk (SW-Ungarn) ..................................................... 437

Alasdair Whittle

Enclosures in the Making: Knowledge, Creativity and emporality ............................................... 457

Istvn Zalai-Galotenhaltung als Indikator relativer Chronologieim transdanubischen Sptneolithikum? .............................................................................................. 467

N S L

Lszl DomborczkiNeolithic Cult Objects and Teir Symbolism ..................................................................................... 487

Gheorghe Lazarovici Cornelia-Magda LazaroviciSacred house and Teir Importance or the Reconstructiono Architecture, Inner Furnishings and Spiritual Lie ....................................................................... 503

E C A B C

Attila Gyucha William A. ParkinsonArchaeological Cultures and the Study o Social Interaction:Te Emergence o the Early Copper Age iszapolgr Culture ..........................................................521

Contents

7


8/29

Svend HansenFigurinen aus Stein und Bein in der sdosteuropischen Kuperzeit ............................................. 539

Judit RegenyeSurviving Neolithic Te Early Copper Age in ransdanubia,

North o Lake Balaton ............................................................................................................................ 557

Wolfram SchierAn Antiquarians Grave? Early iszapolgr Burialsin the Late Vina ell Site o Uivar (Romania) .................................................................................. 569

M C A A

Attila Lszl Sndor Jzsef SztncsujVessels with Handles with Discoid Attachments Discovered

in the AriudCucuteni Area and Some Problems in the Development andChronology o the Ariud (Ersd) Culture in Southeastern ransylvania ..................................... 579

Ildik SzathmriKuperhammeraxt mit Spuren eines Holzschafrestes

vom Donauuer bei Szentendre ............................................................................................................ 595

F L C A B B A T

Mria Bondr

Utilitarian, Artistic, Ritual or Prestige Articles? Te Possible Functiono an Enigmatic Arteact ....................................................................................................................... 605

Szilvia FbinA Preliminary Analysis o Intrasite Patterns at Balatonkeresztr-Rti-dl,a Late Copper Age Site on the Southern Shore o Lake Balaton in Hungary ..................................613

Lszl GyrgyLate Copper Age Animal Burials in the Carpathian Basin .............................................................. 627

Gabriella Kulcsr

Glimpses o the Tird Millenium BC in the Carpathian Basin ....................................................... 643

Vajk SzevernyiTe Earliest Copper Shaf-Hole Axes in the Carpathian Basin:Interaction, Chronology and ransormations o Meaning ............................................................ 661

E B A R N A

Jnos Dani Viktria KisjuhszBestattungen der Mak-Kultur in Berettyjalu, Nagy Bcs-dl ................................................ 671

Contents

8


9/29

Anna EndrdiRecent Data on the Settlement History and Contact System o the BellBeakerCsepel group .............................................................................................................................. 693

M B A MMarietta Csnyi Judit rnokiA Dinner Set rom a Bronze Age Housein Level 2 o the rkeve-erehalom Settlement ................................................................................ 707

Klra P. Fischl Lszl RemnyiInterpretation Possibilites o the Bronze Age ell Sitesin the Carpathian Basin ......................................................................................................................... 725

Szilvia Honti Viktria Kiss

Te Bronze Hoard rom Zalaszabar. New Data on the Studyo the olnanmedi Horizon Part 2 ................................................................................................... 739

Magdolna ViczeMiddle Bronze Age Households at Szzhalombatta-Fldvr ............................................................ 757

L B A R P

Judit KosSptbronzezeitliche Grube mit besonderer Bestimmung

aus Oszlr-Nyraszg (Nordostungarn) ............................................................................................. 771

Gbor V. SzabLate Bronze Age Stolen. New Data on the Illegal Acquisitionand rade o Bronze Age Arteacts in the Carpathian Basin ........................................................... 793

Gbor VcziBurial o the Late umulusEarly Urnfield Periodrom the Vicinity o Nadap, Hungary ...................................................................................................817

I A E (P)Istvn FodorA Scythian Mirror rom Hajdnns, Hungary ..................................................................................831

Mikls SzabLivre celte de la puszta hongroise ........................................................................................................ 839

Contents

9


10/29

I A

Lszl Bartosiewicz Erika Gl Zsfia Eszter KovcsDomesticating Mathematics: axonomic Diversityin Archaeozoological Assemblages ....................................................................................................... 853

Katalin . BirMore on How Much? ........................................................................................................................... 863Zoltn Czajlik Andrs BdcsTe Effectiveness o Aerial Archaeological Research An Approach rom the GIS Perspective ............................................................................................... 873

Ferenc GyulaiArchaeobotanical Research o the Neolithic Sites in the Polgr Area ............................................. 885

Pl Smegi Sndor Gulys Gerg PersaitsTe Geoarchaeological Evolution o the Loess-Covered Alluvial Islando Polgr and Its Role in Shaping Human Settlement Strategies ...................................................... 901

Zsuzsanna K. ZoffmannSignificant Biostatistical Connections between Late NeolithicEthnic Groups rom the Carpathian Basin and Bronze Age Populationsrom erritories beyond the Carpathians .............................................................................................913

Contents

10


11/29

Remarks on the Connections between

the Banat and the Great Hungarian Plain

at the Beginning of the Middle Neolithic(SatchinezAlfld Linear PotteryEsztrVinca)

Mra Ferenc MuseumH-6720 Szeged, Roosevelt tr [email protected]

Te Neolithic settlement on the outskirts o Satchinez in south-western Romania was discovered in 1987, duringthe field survey conducted on the lef bank o the Pmnt Alb Stream. Te findings o the excavation begun in 1989(rench SI) were published in 1993. Te investigation o the site was continued in 1990 by the excavation o anotherarea (rench SII) whose finds are still unpublished.

Te find assemblages unearthed during the 1989 campaign indicated a cultural ermentation in Phase A2 o theVina culture in the north-eastern Banat which affected the StarevoCri and Krs communities then occupyingthe area and played a major role in the transition rom the Early to the Middle Neolithic. In addition to elementscharacteristic o the Vina A culture, the pottery finds rom Satchinez comprised also elements o the Alld LinearPottery, while the finds rom Pit 5 included also the ragment o a small ace pot o the Esztr group.

Te publication o the finds rom Satchinez is vital or a better understanding o the contacts between the Alld

Plain and the Banat during the Middle Neolithic, not least because Esztr pottery has been recovered rom a Vinacontext at this site or the first time. Te publication o the Esztr finds rom Banat also provided an excellent oppor-tunity or reviewing the connections between the Alld Linear Pottery, the Esztr group and the Vina culture. Tecultural and chronological correlations, as well as the evidence rom Satchinez indicate that the terminus ante quem

or the appearance o Esztr pottery was the Vina A3 period.

A dlkelet-romniai Satchinez (emeskenz) hatrban lev jkkori telepls terepbejrs sorn kerlt el a PmntAlb (Fehr-ldi) patak vlgynek balparti teraszn 1987-ben. A leletment sats 1989-ben indult (SI-ellet), me-lynek eredmnyei 1993-ban kerltek kzlsre. 1990-ben egy tovbbi ellettel bvlt a kutats (SII), melynek ered-mnyei azonban mig kzletlenek maradtak.

Az 1989-es sats alapjn megllapthattuk, hogy az K-Bnsgban a Vina-kultra A2 peridusban egy olyanmegtelepeds jtt ltre, amely a terleten l StarevoCri- s Krs-kzssgek hatsra dnt hatst gyakorolt akorai s a kzps neolitikum kztti tejlds olyamatra. A satchinezi kermialeletek kztt a jellegzetes Vina

A jellegek mellett eltnnek az AVK itt idegennek szmt elemei is. Az 5. sz. gdrben pedig az Esztr-csoporthoztartoz arcos edny tredke kerlt el.

A satchinezi sats leletanyagnak kzlse kulcsontossg az Alld s a Bnsg kzps jkkor eleji kulturliss idrendi sszeggsei szempontjbl, mivel ez az els eset, amikor esztri kermia Vina-krnyezetben kerltel. Ezrt helyesnek lttuk, hogy a bnsgi Esztr-leletek kzlse alkalmval a korbban megogalmazottak sszeo-

glalsval s jabb szempontok elvetsvel oglalkozzunk az AVKEsztrVina sszeggsek vizsglatval. A kul-turlis s idrendi ogdzk sszeggsei s a satchinezi sats adatainak egybevetsvel a szerzk az esztri ker-mia megjelensnek terminus ante quem-jt a Vina A3 idszakban jellik meg.

Ferenc Horvth

MOMENTSINTIME BUDAPEST2013

Museum o BanatRo-300002 imioara, Piaa Huniade [email protected]

Florin Draovean

113


12/29

Ferenc Horvth Florin Drasovean

114

Te Neolithic settlement o Satchinez/emeskenz(County imi, south-western Romania) was dis-covered in 1987 during field surveys in the valleyo the Pmnt Alb/Fehrldi Stream. Te settle-ment is located on the streams lef bank, on a ter-

race extending to the ormer village pond, nowdried out.

Te archaeological investigation o the site, be-gun as a rescue excavation, commenced in 1989with the excavation o rench SI. Te materialbrought to light during the first campaign waspublished in 1993 (D 1993). In 1990,the research was continued bythe excavation o another area(rench SII); however, the dis-coveries made during that cam-

paign are still unpublished.Te find assemblages un-

earthed during the 1989 cam-paign indicated a cultural er-mentation in Phase A2 o theVina culture in the northernBanat which affected the Stare-voCri and Krs communitiesin the area and played a majorrole in the proound transor-mations that took place in this

geographical area during thetransition rom the Early to theMiddle Neolithic. Te examina-tion o the material revealed thatin addition to elements charac-teristic o the Vina A culture,the finds also included elementsalien to this culture, which, how-ever, occurred on settlements othe early Linear Pottery in rans-danubia and the Alld Plain1as

a result o the same ethno-cul-tural processes which led to thealmost simultaneous emergenceo the Linear Pottery civiliza-tions in those areas (D1993, 33, 40, 42). Te finds romPit 5 o the Satchinez settlementincluded also the ragment o a

1Te term Alld Plain is here used inthe geographical sense: the southern Al-ld marks the Baka/Bcska and Banat/

Bnt region, while middle and northernAlld the Great Hungarian Plain.

small ace pot o the Esztr group (D1993, Pl. I. 9).

Te site and its finds, as well as their interpreta-tion, elicited attention in the archaeological com-munity owing to the historical implications o the

role these communities played in the transorma-tion o Early Neolithic society in the northern Ba-nat and the southern part o the Great HungarianPlain, and owing to the discovery o a painted Esz-tr pottery ragment in this cultural milieu.

More recent comments on the discoveries atSatchinez discoveries include the ones made by

Fig. 1.Satchinez, Pit 5 coarse pottery

Fig. 2.Satchinez, Pit 5 incised pottery


13/29

Remarks on the Connections between the Banat and the Great Hungarian Plain...

115

Cornelia Magda and Gheorghe Lazarovici (L-L 2006, 148) who re-exam-ined the finds and their stratigraphic context. Teyargued that several different Neolithic occupationscan be distinguished at the site, one dating to the

Vina A phase (Pit 5), one characterised by mate-rial typical or the Vina B2 horizon (Pit 4), andone which can be assigned to the Vina B2/C1phase or the period o the Foeni/Fny migration(Pit 5a). In his view, the Esztr import could beassociated with Pit 5a, which intersected Pit 5, theimplication being that owing to the cultural attri-

bution o the ormer, Pit 5a can be chronologicallyassigned to the beginning o the Late Neolithic.

Lazarovicis opinion contrasted sharply withour stratigraphic observations and with the con-clusions we reached at that time. We thereore de-

cided to re-examine the already published materi-al and data, and complement it with the evidencerom the 1990 excavation, unpublished as yet, inorder to clariy this issue.

When the finds rom the site were first pub-lished, it was noted that although Satchinez is astratified site, only one layer dates rom the Ne-

olithic, namely the occupationlayer at the base o the accu-mulated deposits. Tis lower-most layer is ca. 0.20 m thick

(D 1993, 25). Six pitscould be assigned to this layer:three o these were investigatedin 1989 (Pits 4, 5 and 5a), whilethe other three in 1990 (Pits 8,9, 10). Te archaeological ma-terial brought to light rom theNeolithic layer and rom the sixpits is relatively uniorm andwill be described briefly in theollowing.

Te coarse pottery was maderom clay tempered with sandand ground chaff, occasional-ly also with ground sherds andpebbles. Most vessels were firedto a brown colour, with a ew toa yellowish or brick red colour.Most vessels in this categoryare decorated with finger im-pressions on and under the rim,notching on the rim, vertical, di-

agonal or horizontal channelledbarbotine, and finger impressedcordons on the upper hal othe vessels (Fig. 1, Fig. 12. 12).Te incised lines decorating thistype o pottery are arranged ei-ther diagonally or running par-allel to each other (Fig. 8. 6), orinto meander or spiral designsfilled with short stabs (Fig. 2.16). Some incised lines are en-crusted with a white chalky sub-stance.

Fig. 3.Satchinez, Pit 5 carinated ware

Fig. 4.Satchinez, Pit 5 red slipped ware


14/29


116

Semi-fine pottery, less numerous than thecoarse pottery, was tempered with fine sand, butoccasionally also with organic matter and groundsherds. Te vessel surace is burnished and the ves-sels were fired to a blackish-grey or grey colour.Most vessels in this category are biconical (Fig. 8.4, Fig. 9. 1, Fig. 11. 3, Fig. 17. 23, Fig. 18. 45) andshallow conical vessels (Fig. 5, Fig. 18. 23). Temost requent decorations are incised zig-zagginglines orming triangular fields filled with shortstabs under the rim (Fig. 5. 13, Fig. 18. 3), spirals

filled with stabs (Fig. 2. 4, Fig. 5. 56), and incisedmeanders (Fig. 17. 7, Fig. 19). Te upper part o

some biconical vessels is decorat-ed with incisions made by bur-nishing the surace o the clay.

Te fine pottery was maderom finely levigated, well-fired

clay. Te vessel surace was care-ully burnished, giving it a metal-lic sheen. Fine wares were fireda grey, greyish-black or blackcolour. Owing to the firing tech-nique, the upper part o somevessels is black or greyish-black,while the lower part is grey or,more rarely, dark red or brown(Fig. 2). Te stems o goblets wereslipped beore firing to a dark red

colour and were careully bur-nished (Fig. 4, Fig. 5. 5, Fig. 9.4, Fig. 12. 6, Fig. 14, top, Fig. 17.45). Goblets are biconical witha tall stem and an emphaticallyconcave base. Te pottery in thiscategory is dominated by biconi-cal and simple shallow vessels.Te decoration o the fine warecomprised fine fluting arrangeddiagonally on the upper part o

biconical vessels (Fig. 3. 46, Fig.9. 2, Fig. 14. 4, Fig. 17. 2), and flut-ing and burnished lines arrangeddiagonally or in a chevron pat-tern (Fig. 3. 1, 34, 67, 9, Fig. 9.3). Only one ragment, recoveredrom Pit 5, is decorated on theinterior with parallel bands ar-ranged in a V orm made by bur-nishing the vessel surace (Fig. 6).

Found in Pit 5 was the rag-

ment o a human figurine (D 1993, Pl.VI. 5). wo other human figurines (Fig. 16. 12)come rom the occupation layer.

Te archaeological material rom the six pitsand the occupation layer o the Satchinez settle-ment, as well as the available radiocarbon dates,enable the precise dating and unequivocal cul-tural attribution o the site. At the same time, theimports discovered in two pits (Pits 5 and 10) andthe evidence rom eastern Hungary enable addi-tional conclusions regarding a possible correla-tion between the Vina A phase and the Esztrgroup.

Fig. 5.Satchinez, Pit 5 vessels o decorated with triangular fields filled with stabs

Fig. 6. Satchinez, Pit 5 bowl rag-ment with pattern burnished motis

Fig. 7. Satchinez, Pit 5 ragment o theEsztr ace pot


15/29


117

Te abric, the firing andburnishing o the vessel surac-es and the pottery wares them-selves share countless similari-ties with the ceramic material

rom the Vina A settlementsat Gornea/Felslupk (L- 1975, 1314; 1977, 72, 106,112; 1981, 173) and Liubcova/Al-slupk (L 1998, 3738). Al-though black topped pottery hadnot been ound at the time whenthe Satchinez material was firstpublished, Pit 10 yielded severalragments o biconical vesselswith a black upper and dark red

lower part o the type also oundat Gornea (L 1977,57) and Liubcova (L 1998,38) dating rom the Vina A2A3 phase.

Te most requent shapes are biconical deepbowls, whose best counterparts are known romGornea and Liubcova, rom the Vina A2 phase(L 1977, 57; 1979, 112113; L 1998,41), although parallels can also be quoted romassemblages influenced by the early Vina cul-

ture, assigned to the so-called Proto-Vina pe-riod (H 2006b, Pl. I. 1; O 2007, 505).In addition to these deep bowls, the biconical ves-sels rom Pit 4 (D 1993, Pl. I. 4) andPit 10 are best matched by pieces rom the Vina

A3 phase (L 1977, 58; DF 2003), or the Proto-Vina period (H2006b, Pl. I. 4, Pl. II. 5).

Various ormal elements o the goblets allowtheir precise dating and cultural attribution. Teirstems are tall, with a red painted, markedly con-cave base, resembling the pieces ound in Vina A

cultural contexts (L 1977, 58; 1979, 113;L 1998, 38).Te decorative motis on the pottery rom

Satchinez are particularly important both or dat-ing and or establishing the role played by com-

Fig. 8.Satchinez, Pit 5a selection o diagnostic pottery

Fig. 9.Satchinez, Pit 4 fine pottery and ALP imports Fig. 10.Satchinez, Pit 4 ragment oan ALP vessel


16/29


118

munities o this type in the emergence o certaincultures in the Alld Plain. Tus, parallel di-agonal stabs on coarse pottery can be ound onStarevoCri pottery (D 1974, Pl. XI.6, Pl. XIX. 12, 1416; L 1975, Pl. V. 12;1981, Fig. 5. 13, 9, Pl. 7. 6, Pl. 8. 5; 1984, Fig. 6.7, Fig. 8. 2, 4), Krs (K 1944, Pl. VI. 11,Pl. XIII. 11, Pl. XVIII. 9, Pl. XXVIII. 5, Pl. XL. 11;

1964, Fig. 12. 1; R 1976, Fig. 4.2, Fig. 9. 3, Fig. 13. 6), and Vina A (V 1936,

Pl. V. 36; L 1977, 57,59, Pl. LV. 18, Pl. XLIII. 2; 1979,113, Pl. XIV H/33), as well ason early Linear Pottery vessels( 1964, Fig. 6. 5;

M 1978, Pl. XVII. 19; K- 1979, Pl. 8. 1; P 1980,Fig. 42. 2; K 1981, Fig.4. 5) o the StarevoCri IIIBIVAVina A1A2early LinearPottery chronological horizon.In the early ransdanubian Lin-ear Pottery (LP), these decora-tions are associated with spiraland meandering designs (K-M 1972, Fig. 3. 9;

1979, Pl. 8. 1; M 1978, Pl.XI. 4ac, Pl. XVII. 13, 18). Teincisions below the vessel rimresemble those o the StarevoCri IV (L 1980, Fig.2. 6; 1981, Fig. 8. 5; 1983, 25 andFig. 1. 6), Vina A2 (L1977, Pl. LII. 1), Szatmr II (K- 1983, Fig. 7. 7, 9, Fig. 9. 2, 4,79, Fig. 10. 45, Fig. 11. 8, 11, 13,16, 19) and Picolt I (L-

1983, Fig. 9. 1). A ragmentrom a conical vessel with a bur-nished incision under the rimound in Pit 5 is similar to a dec-orative moti ound in SzatmrII (early Alld Linear Pottery)and Picolt I contexts (KM 1977, Pl. 5. 3, 9, 10, 16,Pl. 11. 26, 811, 12, 1416, Pl.168. 1; R 1983, Fig. 18. 6).Analogies with similar cultural

levels (KM 1977,Pl. 22. 4, 16; K 1977, Fig.15. 12, Fig. 22. 12, 4, 9, 22; L-

1983, Fig. 2. 11, Fig. 3. 14, Fig. 4. 7; L- N 1983, Pl. VII. 3) are also sug-gested by the wavy lines decorating a vessel oot(Fig. 10).

Te fine pottery is decorated with fluting, pat-tern burnishing and burnished incisions. Whilethe first two decorative elements, associated withmanuacturing techniques and vessel orm, haveanalogies only in the Vina A phase (V 1936,ab. IV. 2021, ab. VIII. 30b; L 1975,

Fig. 11.Satchinez, Pit 9 selection o diagnostic pottery finds

Fig. 12. Satchinez, Pit 10 diagnostic coarse and fine pottery


17/29


119

1314 and Fig. VI. 4, 7, 13; 1977,5759, 61; 1979, 111, 113, 114), bur-nished incisions, highly charac-teristic o Satchinez decorations,can be linked to polychromy and

to Paradimi (Z 1964, 25and Fig. 5. 12; N 1977, Fig.11. 46; B-S1981, Pl. 50. 1, Pl. 57. 3, Pl. 59.14, Pl. 60. 9). Another elementlinking the pottery to the Bal-kans and to polychromy is greyburnished pottery, another com-mon type o Satchinez fine pot-tery. Tese decorative elements(burnished incisions and grey

pottery) are also known romthe southern part o the GreatHungarian Plain, e.g., rom Pit3 o Maroslele-Pana and romszentivn VIII (1964, 85; H 2006a), dat-ed to the Vina A2A3 chrono-logical horizon.

Te analogies presented aboveclearly demonstrate that the Neo-lithic settlement eatures uncov-

ered at Satchinez can be assignedto Phase A o the Vina culture.Within this time rame, certainfiner chronological distinctionscan be drawn among these com-plexes even at the current state oresearch. Pits 5 and 4 can be as-signed to Phase A2 o the Vinaculture, while Pits 5a, 8, 9 and 10all contain later elements, assign-ing them to the Vina A3 phase.

Tis later date is also confirmedby the Linear Pottery elementsrom Pits 8 (Fig. 15)and 10 (Fig.14. 5), as well as rom the occu-pation layer (Fig. 17. 6, Fig. 18.1), which have much in com-mon with the finds o the BanatCulture and the Alld LinearPottery culture (ALP) rom thenorthern Banat and the south-ern part o the Great Hungar-ian Plain (D 1989;2006a; 2006b; L 1991,

Fig. 13.Satchinez, Pit 10 imported Esztr cup

Fig. 14.Satchinez, Pit 8 diagnostic coarse and fine pottery

Fig. 15.Satchinez, Pit 8 rag-ment o an ALP vessel Fig. 16.Satchinez, Pit 5 ragments o humanfigurines


18/29


120

Fig. 15. 2, 4) assigned to the Vina A3 cultural ho-rizon. Te linear ornamental motis used by theNeolithic communities living in these regionsreflect a changing world, an interaction betweenthe old Vina culture and the autochthonousStarevoCri/Krs communities o the north-ern Banat and the southern part o the Great Hun-garian Plain, a process which eventually led to thebirth o the Banat culture and the ALP culture.

Consequently, despite certain chronologicaldistinctions which can be made at the moment

regarding the archaeologicaleatures, all the find assemblag-es brought to light at Satchinezdate back to no later than PhaseA o the Vina culture. Moreo-

ver, there are no elements what-soever either in the materialrom the occupation layer, romPit 5a, or rom any other ea-ture that would suggest a differ-ent chronological and culturalattribution, more specifically,the Vina B2/C1 phase or theFoeni group proposed by C.-M.and Gh. Lazarovici, seeing thatthe latters genetic affiliation

(D 2002, 6162; 2004;2006a; 2006b) and characteris-tic elements (D 1997)clearly distinguish it not onlyrom the early phase o the Vinaculture, but also rom all the cul-tural complexes which evolvedin this geographical area duringthe Late Neolithic (D1994; 1996).

In conclusion, even i the

Esz-tr import discovered in1989 had not originated rom Pit5, but rom Pit 5a, a hypothesiswhich cannot be rejected out ohand, the act that the latter canalso be assigned to the Vina Aphase, perhaps to Phase A3, doesnot significantly influence thesynchronism proposed by us al-most two decades ago.

Tis seems to be confirmed

by the act that Pit 10, excavatedin 1990, yielded another Esztrimport, also in association with Vina A3 materi-als. Te find in question is a globular vessel withcurvilinear motis painted in black, only partiallypreserved (Fig. 13), which supports the synchro-nism presented above and confirms the Vina A3chronological level as a terminus ante quem orthe earliest appearance o the Esztr group.

Te publication o the entire find materialrom Satchinez is o vital importance or a bet-ter understanding o the Middle Neolithic con-tacts between the southern, and the middle and

Fig. 17.Satchinez diagnostic pottery rom the occupation layer

Fig. 18.Satchinez diagnostic pottery rom the occupation layer


19/29


121

northern areas o the Alld Plain (the area be-tween the Krs and Maros rivers), seeing that itrepresents the first Esztr imports rom the Vinadistribution. Te regions discussed here comprisethe area south o the River Maros to the line o

the Danube and the oot o the ransylvanianAlps in Rumania, Serbia, Hungary and the vastarea o the Great Hungarian Plain, reaching as aras the Northern Mountain Range in eastern Slo-vakia. Te northern Banat variant o the Vinacomplex occupied the regions south o the RiverMaros, while different variants o the Alld Lin-ear Pottery and the Esztr group were distributednorth o the river.

Several studies have been devoted to the con-nections between the two regions and cultural

complexes, most using the traditional, typologicaland typo-chronological approach. Early studiesby Gordon V. Childe, Ferenc ompa, Jnos Ban-ner, Sndor Gallus, Friedrich Holste, VladimirMiloji, Fritz Schachermeyr, Ida Kutzin, BogdanBrukner and others ocused on the contacts be-tween the Alld Plain and South-East Europe.Te pioneering and more detailed analyses o con-tacts between the Alld Linear Pottery and theneighbouring areas have been mainly perormedby Hungarian, Rumanian and Serbian archaeolo-

gists (L 1976, 1979; KM1977; G 1989; but cp. also C1981; P 1993). Later studies were con-cerned with establishing more precise correlationsbetween the different chronological-developmen-tal periods o the ALP and the Vina complex(R 1986; 1988; 1992).

Aside rom the traditional typological ap-proach, the new advances in radiocarbon datingheld out the promise o a method enabling a morereliable and precise determination o the chrono-

logical dimension o the connections (G. S- 1983; H 1991; HH1992; HH 1994; H . 1998). Despite later critiques (S 1997,79, note 172; D 2003, 2122; O2007, 579581), these initial efforts representedthe first attempts towards establishing a broad ra-diocarbon chronology or the Carpathian Basin.While some o the criticism levelled at our analy-sis o the radiocarbon dates was certainly justified,it must also be borne in mind that the interpreta-tion o the dates was modified afer the analyseswere repeated using group calibration and date

clusters (Figs 2021).2Even more important is thatour studies called attention to certain parallelismsrather than strict theoretical sequences, i.e. the as-sumed succession o archaeological-chronologicalunits within the chronological ramework o theMiddle Neolithic in the Great Hungarian Plain.

A number o problems nonetheless remainedunresolved when attempting to synchronise neigh-bouring sites, cultural complexes and culturalperiods; it also became clear that despite its cur-

rent accuracy, radiocarbon dating is unsuitableor excluding a wide range o variability in possi-ble synchronisms exactly because o the significantoverlaps between the time ranges o the calibrateddates. Also, the preciseness o a relative chronologybased on typological cross-dating always dependson the reliable identification o imported and trad-ed commodities, as well as on the excavation meth-ods applied. Tese problems have been discussedin detail regarding the ALPEsztrVina interre-lationships (H 1994, 103106; H

H 1994, 115116), as well as regardingcontacts between the Esztr group and the Banat(H 1996, 128134), which have stirred lit-tle attention until now. Te conclusions presentedin these studies, complemented with the new evi-

2Following Pl Raczkys critical comments on Ferenc Horvthscandidates thesis, the cited date clusters (HH1994, 122129) were group calibrated by Ede Hertelendi in 1996in the Institute o Nuclear Research o the Hungarian Academy oSciences (Debrecen). Although the dates were quoted during thepublic debate, they are first published here. Te base o the idea or

using these clusters was the visible grouping o certain radiocar-bon dates within the Neolithic time sequence.

Fig. 19.Satchinez diagnostic pottery rom the occupationlayer


20/29


122

dence on the dating and connec-tions o the Esztr painted pot-tery, are as ollows:

(1) Only settlements o theKrs culture can be ound in

the later core distribution othe Esztr group prior to its ap-pearance between the south-ern part o the Nyrsg and theKrs Valley (the greater part oKrskz, Srrt, Hegykz, Rz-alja, Hajdsg and Hortobgyregions). During the over tenyears that have elapsed since thepublication o the above stud-ies, new Krs settlements have

been discovered in the core dis-tribution, confirming our earlierhypothesis (HN 2000,3335; D . 2006, 57).

(2) Independent ALP 1 (Szat-mr II, Rtkzberencs-Parom-domb type) and ALP 2 sites(classical, Hortobgy-Faluvg-halom type) or sites o the as-sumed later ALP periods are notknown rom within the Esztr

core distribution. Te typical in-cised (or, better said, grooved)ALP traits mixed with Esztr-type finds appear in the contactzones, principally on the westernand the northern/north-easternringes o the Esztr distribution(Fig. 22).

(3) Te occurrence o thistype o ALP pottery in relation tothe Esztr core distribution sug-

gests that the two neighbouringpopulations only interacted inthe contact zones, and most ALPpottery finds are imports in theEsztr area. Te latter is confirmed by the obser-vation that the incision technique employed by theALP and Szaklht cultures are absent in the Esz-tr group (GG. S 1998, 118).Most o the import ALP wares have been assignedto the ALP 2 (classical, Hortobgy-Faluvghalom)or ALP 3 phase (the assumed later phase and theSzarvas-rpart type) on typological grounds inthe overwhelming majority o the cases (K

M 1977, 189215). No changes could be not-ed in the distribution o the sites yielding potteryo this type during the ALP 2 and 3 periods.

(4) Te chronological implications o the evi-dence presented in the above are the ollowing: inthe ALP 1 (Szatmr II) period, the surviving Krscommunities populated the later Esztr areas. Fewo the known Krs sites rom this area can be dat-ed with accuracy within the Krs sequence. Te

Fig. 20.Te group calibrations o date clusters or the Krs, early ALP, and earlyVina cultures (unpublished, afer Ede Hertelendi)


21/29


123

Szentpterszeg-Krtvlyes (K 1982, 213214)and Cskm-ordai zsilip sites can be assigned to

the late Krs period (HN 2000, 3335).Little is known about the date o Berettyjalu-Nagy Bcs-dl site (D . 2006, 57). Onenotable exception is the Furta-Cst site, whichcan be dated to the latest, proto-Vina period, re-garded as contemporaneous with the ALP 1 in thesouthern contact zone (MS 2008,Figs 324339). Tere are no late Krs sites northo Szentpterszeg up to the Mhtelek distribution.Te scanty traces o Krs sites contemporane-ous with ALP 1 (Szatmr II) are restricted to the

southern areas o the Esztr distribution. Te Esz-tr and the ALP 1 distribution complement eachother exactly, this being the reason or assumingthat the appearance o the Esztr population maybe dated as early as the ALP 1 period.

Currently, there is no irreutable stratigraphicevidence or either the ormer or the latter assump-tions. Recently uncovered mixed ALP 1Esztr as-semblages (such as the one rom Balmazjvros-Darucsorda kt, Site 1 and similar find materials)must be treated with caution until primary strati-

graphic evidence o similar theoretically pos-sible contexts is discovered (M 2009).

What is certain is that the appearance o Esztrpainted pottery in the main area o its distribution

can be correlated with the ALP 2 period. Tis cor-relation seems to be supported by both the radio-carbon dates (HH 1994, 124125) and the import Esztr ceramics in classicalALP 2 assemblages rom the valley o the ripleKrs river (M 1982, 61; 2007, 99).

(5) While there has been a welcome rise in thenumber o Esztr sites during the past decade (Bi-harkeresztes, Hajdszoboszl, Ebes, Berettyj-alu, Hajdbszrmny, Debrecen, etc.), with thetotal number now over sixty, little is known about

the internal periodisation o the Esztr phenome-non. Te stratigraphy o the Mezgyn-Pski Hillsite indicates the existence o at least two Esztrdevelopmental periods. Te lower layer yieldedpurely Esztr material, the next layer a later Esztrassemblage containing Szaklht pottery, whilethe uppermost layer could be assigned to the iszaculture. Sadly, the find material in question hasnot been published in detail to date (GG. S 1994, 226).

(6) A similar situation can be noted regard-ing the distribution o the late Krs and earliestSzaklht cultures in the area between the valleys

Fig. 21.Te calibration curves o the group calibrated data (unpublished, afer Ede Hertelendi)


22/29


124

o the Krs and Maros rivers on the Romanianside. Following the Early Neolithic, the knownsites can be assigned to the early Szaklht cul-ture (Vrand/Gyulavarsnd, Sntana/jszentanna,AradGrdite/AradVr, Puli/paulis). Tere

is nothing to support the distribution maps onwhich the northernmost boundary o the Vinaculture is drawn at the line o the River Some/Szamos (RA 2003, Fig. 1) and thato the Banat culture at the line o the Cri/KrsValley (LL 2006, Fig. IIIb.1, Fig. IIIg. 1). However, it is still unclear whetherthe ALP sites o the Szarvas-rpart type were dis-tributed continuously to the line o the Criul Alb/Fehr-Krs valley afer the latest Krs period onthe Rumanian side, or whether the earliest Szakl-

ht was wedged in-between the north-westernvariant o the early Vina culture and the Esztrgroup.

Te relative chronological synchronisation othe ALP sequence and the sub-phases o the Banatcomplexes poses several difficulties. Te generallyaccepted internal periodisations conceal severalcontradictions with regard to both the ALP com-plex and the north-western Banat variant o theVina culture.

Regarding the ALP, or example, the sub-di-

vision ollowing the Szatmr II period proposedby Nndor Kalicz and Jnos Makkay, namely anearly and a later phase, and the local groups othe ALP (KM 1977) are used differ-ently in the text and on Map 3 and in able 3, thelatter two eaturing an intermediate phase with-out any description o its traits. Moreover, no di-erences can be discerned between the traits o theproposed early and late phases, whose assemblagesare discussed without any mention o the differ-ences between them (KM 1977, 30

37). In the chronological ramework proposed in1977 and Makkays later scheme (made up o ourdevelopmental periods: Szatmr II, early, classical,and the different groups), Szatmr II was contem-poraneous with late Krs and the beginning oProto-Vina (KM 1977, 94, abelle2 between pages 9495; M 1982, 54).

Another, slightly differing version suggested byPl Paczky which otherwise ollows Makkaysourold division (ALP 14 periods: M 1982,54) has correctly correlated the Szatmr II as-semblages with ALP 1

period. Te other sub-peri-ods in this scheme (ALP 24) ollow the ourold

division; however, the archaeological units (Szakl-ht and Esztr) assigned to Phase 4 (Raczkys classi-cal ALP phase) appear already in Phase 3 as shownby the assemblages rom sites such as Beretty-szentmrton-Morotva and Bks-Dl. Seeing that

the Szaklht finds rom Bks-Dl hardly repre-sent the cultures earliest appearance, Raczkys ALP4 would be contemporaneous only with (or repre-sented by) the latest Szaklht period (isza I, thecultures ormative period), the latest Esztr and theBkk III groups. Moreover, it is debatable whetherthe ormer two can be regarded as integral parts othe ALP in view o their partly different geneticsand material culture.

Tese chronological schemes synchronised thefirst hal o the ALP (Phases 12, Szatmr II, and

early, i.e. classical periods) with Vina A (Vinaordos I), and the second hal (ALP 3, i.e. the laterphase, and ALP 4, the latest local groups such asSzarvas-rpart, Szilmeg, Bkk, iszadob, Sza-klht and Esztr) with Vina B (VinaordosII) (KM 1977, 94, 100111; R1988, 29; 1989, 235). Tis ourold chronologicalscheme ormed the basis or later syntheses, whichdivided the ALP II into two urther sub-phases,ALP IIa and IIb, based on the analysis o the char-acteristic traits o decorative motis and pottery

orms (S 1997, 998).More recently yet another scheme has beenproposed to divide the ALP 1 (Szatmr II) intothree urther sub-phases (KS. K 2000,69), meaning that the number o ALP sub-phasesincreased to seven, and in this respect it resem-bled the most complicated sub-periodisation o theVina A and B phases (S 1991, Fig. 146). Temain problem with these sub-divisions is that theyare based on the typological analysis o pottery as-semblages rom a pit or a house, pottery seriation,

or the analysis o the characteristic traits o decora-tive motis and pottery orms. While these analy-ses can contribute to test or to increase the accura-cy o the chronological time-range o assemblages,it cannot be a substitute or the evidence providedby stratigraphic sequences. Tese sub-divisionsthereore remain theoretical categories which arerarely filled with meaningul content, reflected bythe lack o a description o the typological charac-teristics o the assemblages assigned to the differ-ent chronological phases (cp. K 2007, 35).

Te main problem in the correlation o the di-erent ALP developmental phases with those o


23/29


125

the north-western or north-east-ern variants o the Vina com-plex south o the River Marosis the uncertain date o the ALPimports. It cannot be established

whether the significant numbero ALP potsherds ound onVina sites in Hungary (szen-tivn VIII, iszasziget, Deszk A)Romania (Satchinez, Freidor/Szabadalu IV, Freidor-Hladnik,Fratelia/jtesld, Gornea) andthe Serbian Banat (Crna Bara/Feketet, oka/Cska, Beej/becse-Gradite), and the findsrom Vina-Belo Brdo and Ban-

jica south o the Danube repre-sent Phase 2 or 3 o the ALP. Atsome sites, the presence o theSzarvas-rpart type could be de-termined (szentivn VIII, Frei-dor I, Crna Bara), but not even somuch at other sites (HH 1994, 116).

Te early appearance o theEsztr and ALP assemblages atSatchinez in Vina A2A3 con-

texts (D 1993, 42),however, challenges the chron-ological position o the Esztrphenomenon, generally assignedto the ALP 3 and 4, which is cor-related with Vina B. In view o these contexts andin the light o the regional distribution o the ALPand the Esztr group, the appearance o the lattercan now be confidently synchronised with ALP 2(described as early in KM 1977: andas classical in M 1982). A personal exami-

nation o the ALP imports ound at Satchinez in-dicated that they can be assigned to this period.Te difficulties in the more precise attribution

o single ALP pottery ragments ound on Vinasites has been mentioned in the above; the only ex-ceptions are the Szarvas-rpart type motis iden-tified in a ew cases. Similarly to the Esztr group,the Szarvas-rpart type was until now assigned tothe two latest ALP periods. Te late dating o theSzarvas-rpart type and the internal periodi-sation o the quoted sites most certainly needsto be revised. Another issue is which o the ALPIIab and III sub-phases the two chronological

horizons o the Szarvas-rpart type identified byGyrgy Goldman at Bks-Dl and Gerla-Ksz-mn (G 1983, 26) can be correlated with.

Te appearance o the Banat culture in the Ro-manian Banat and that o the Bucova group inthe Bega/Bga Valley would suggest that Vina A3

can be regarded as a terminus ante quem or theSatchinez type Vina A sites. Romanian researchdefined the chronological position o Satchin-ez immediately beore the Banat I culture in thetime-span and material culture o Vina A2 pe-riod (D 1993, 42, 47; LL- 2006, 211, 675).

However, no such terminus ante quem can beestablished in the Hungarian and Serbian Banatowing to the lack o independent early and clas-sical Szaklht sites on the one hand, and the lacko characteristic Vina B1 sites on the other. It ispossible that the Vina A settlements south o the

Fig. 22.Te north-eastern Banat and the Great Hungarian Plain in the first hal othe Middle Neolithic


24/29


126

River Maros survived into the B1 period with amore or less unaltered material culture, this being

the reason that Serbian research does not draw adistinction o this type (Vina A and B) in this re-

gion, using the label early Vina or Vinaordosin most cases.

Te stratigraphy o the Vina-Belo Brdo siteprovides a possible solution to this problem: the

Fig. 23.A selection o the archaic wares o Esztr assemblages 113, 1516: Berettyszentmrton-Morotva, 14. Biharkeresz-tes (afer HN 2000)


25/29


127

late Szaklht ace pots came to light at a depth o7.4 m, conorming to the Vina B1 period accord-ing to all the chronological schemes (Miloji: B1,Berciu: B1, Lazarovici: B1, Schier: B1b; cp. S1996, Fig. 146). Tis stratigraphical context indi-

cates that the ALP imports ound in the deeperlevels at Vina-Belo Brdo can be assigned to theVina A phase and it also explains the assignationo the Szaklht imports to Vina B12 in the Ser-bian Banat (Crna Bara, Novi Beej/rkbecse-Matejsky Brod, Banatska Subotica/Krassszom-bat-Cerovica, Io/iszahegyes-Gradite, Sajan/Szajn-Kremenjak).

Esztr pottery has not been analysed in de-tail to date. Te assemblage best available or thestudy o its associations remains the one rom Be-

rettyjalu-Szentmrton-Morotva (S. M1979, 3556).3 O the three pits excavated at thesite, Pit A and especially Pit C contained archaicfinds (published only partly). Tese archaic traitsare the short, incised or grooved decorations onthe vessel body or the low pedestal (Fig. 23. 15;S. M 1979, Pl. VII, top right), semi-barbo-tine (oblique or horizontal Schlickwur) cover-ing coarse pots (Fig. 23. 68, 1011), rims deco-rated with impressions (Fig. 23. 8), short, obliqueor vertical double ribs (Fig. 23. 9), small, shallow

cup with thickened oot and traces o black paint-ing, the monochrome, incarnadine or crimson(purple-red) slip applied beore firing (Fig. 23.1213), horizontal rib handles set inside the ves-sels (S. M 1979, Pl. IX, middle), vertical andoblique black or, rarely, white painted linear (orpearled) design on lustrous purple-red slip, occur-ring in late KrsStarevo, Vina A and ALP 1contexts (H 1996, 132).

Te ragment o a biconical vessel with con-stricted mouth and a lug handle provides a chron-

ological anchor (Fig. 23. 1516). Similar lug han-dles have been ound at Kosovo and in southernMorava at sites contemporaneous with late Vina A(Anza IVab sites o Anzabegovo) and with VinaB1 (Zelenikovo II-Angelci) (G 1976,130131, Fig. 80; S 2006, 155, Fig. IIa. 3, Fig.IIIb. 8, 1315). A variant o this handle type withtruncated terminal spread rom the Skopje regionto the northernmost Szaklht distribution in a

3Debrecen, Dri Mzeum, inv. nos 79.2.41, 79.3.24, 79.3.20,

79.3.49, 79.3.15, 79.6.7, 79.5.62, 79.3.30, 79.10.1, 79.2.1, 79.2.12,79.2.36.

straight line rom south to north in the Vina Aand B1 periods (H 2006a, 315, Fig. 3. 48).

A black topped ragment rom a red slipped,black painted vessel rom Feature 8 o the Biharke-resztes-Kis Szrcss dl site (HN 2000,

Fig. 8) provides additional chronological prooor an earlier dating o certain Esztr assemblag-es (Fig. 23. 14). As Vladimir Miloji aptly noted,this technique has no antecedents in the Danuberegion. Widely used during the Vina A period,black-topped wares, which had their origins in thesouth, disappeared at the onset o the next period(M 1949, 268, 294). Black-topped pottery atGornea in the Lower Danube Basin in the VinaA1 period accounted or 30% o the fine ware. Tisproportion decreased to 10% in Vina A2 and to

1.5% in Vina A3 assemblages (L 1977,55, 57, 60). Milojis observation is supportedby the gradual decline o black-topped pottery atGornea and its virtual disappearance by the endo the Vina A period.

Te record rom the Upper Mure/Maros andMorava Valley variants o the Vina complex ar-ther east and south indicates that the black-toppedtechnique is typical during the Vina A periodand that a variant o this technique apparentlysurvived into the Vina AB transition and the

beginning o Vina B, although its proportion andquality decreased (GG 1979,69, 71, 73, 77; F 2007, 32). Te ceramicsrom the latter period, however, were not made bythe genuine black-topped technique. Afer person-ally examining variants o the black-topped tech-nique, John Chapman noted that Black-toppedwares are the products o experiments in suracetreatment. Such experiments are consistent withthe innovative character o late Starevo and earli-est Vina potters (C 1981, 36). Bearing

in mind the period during which this firing tech-nique was popular, the black-topped vessel rag-ment rom Biharkeresztes (HN 2000,Figs 1, 4, 6) can be put at the end o the Vina Aperiod or the Vina AB transition. Te otherpublished pottery sherds (rim decorated with im-pressions, short incised lines, vertical ribs, spout-ed vessel) make this site one o the earliest Esztrsettlements.

Returning briefly to radiocarbon dating, thefirst question is how the earliest Esztr and Satch-inez dates (Berettyjalu-Szilhalom: Bln 2580,5579; Satchinez: Deb 2579) relate to the Vina A


26/29


128

period. Te earliest dates or Esztr all into Clus-ter V, as defined in an earlier study (HH 1994, 122128) which, according tothe group calibration, alls between 53805220cal BC, predating the Vina A settlements both at

iszasziget (Bln 1631) and Satchinez (Deb 2579).Te Esztr dates are also earlier than the ones orthe ALP sites at iszavasvri-Keresztal (Bln 505)and arnabod-emplomld (Bln 123), the ear-liest Szaklht dates rom the lowermost level othe p-Leb A tell settlement (Deb 1366), andthe earliest dates rom Battyonya-Parzstanya(Bln 1967). Te latter dates, however, all between52905110 cal BC, part o Cluster VI (HH 1994, 122128).

Te second question is whether it is possible

to determine the onset o the Vina B period withan accuracy o at least fify years? Since the firstanalysis (C 1981, 1732), new series o ra-diocarbon dates have become available. WolramSchier and Roland Glser defined the end o VinaA and the beginning o the Vina B period around5200 cal BC at Vina-Belo Brdo (G 1991, 177;S 1991, Fig. 12). W. Schier later modified this

date and defined it as nearer to Chapmans opinionbased on uncalibrated dates (4260/4240 bc), dat-ing the beginning o the Vina B1a period between5180/50405130/5040 cal BC (S 1995, 330,Abb. 149). Te dates or the Banat II period ully

correspond to Vina B1 (L 2006, 282). Itollows rom the above that the dates o Clusters Vand VI, containing the earliest dates or Esztr andSatchinez, all into the time-span o Vina A, wellbeore the earliest dates representing the Vina B1period. Te combined dates o Cluster VII, con-taining one sample rom szentivn VIII/e-Pit 4(Bln 477), however, overlaps partly with Vina Aand partly with Vina B.

In spite o the problems concerning the inter-nal periodisation o Esztr pottery and the defini-

tion o its typo-chronological position relative toVina A type assemblages, the radiocarbon chro-nology would suggest that the appearance o thispottery can be dated to the period correspondingto Vina A. A detailed correlation between thesub-phases o the ALP and Vina A can only beestablished in the light o reliable stratigraphic ob-servations.

References

B, G.S, A. 1981: Paradimi.Mainz am Rhein.C, J. 1981: Te Vina culture o South-East Europe. Studies in chronology, economy and society III.British

Archaeological ReportsInternational Series 117, Oxord.D, J.S, K.S, M.C, S.K, V. 2006: Elzetes jelents a Berettyjalu, Nagy

Bcs-dl lelhelyen 20042005 sorn vgzett rgszeti eltrsrl Preliminary report o the excavationspreceding investment at the Berettyjalu, Nagy Bcs-dl site in 20042005. Rgszeti Kutatsok

Magyarorszgon 2005 Archaeological Investigations in Hungary 2005,Budapest 2006, 531.D, S. 1974: Problem stupnjevanja starevake kulture s posebnim obzirom na doprinos junopanonskih

nalazita rjeavanju ovog problema.Materijali Saveza Arheolokih Drutava Jugoslavije10 (1974) 59122.D, L. 2003: Radiocarbon data rom neolithic archaeological sites in Heves County (North-Eastern

Hungary).Agria39 (2003) 571.D, F. 1989: Observaii pe marginea unor materiale inedited privind raporturile dintre culturile Starevo

Cri, Vina A i lumea liniar din nordul Banatului.Apulum26 (1989) 948.D, F. 1993: Aezarea neolitic de la Satchinez (jud. imi) Te neolithic settlement rom Satchinez

(imi county).Analele Banatului2 (1993) 2548.D, F. 1994: Die Stue Vina C im Banat. Germania72 (1994) 409425.D, F. 1996: Cultura Vina, aza trzie n Banat. Bibliotheca Historica et Archaeologica Banatica 1,

imioara.D, F. 1997: Die Petreti-Kultur im Banat.Prhistorische Zeitschrif72 (1997) 5480.D, F. 2002: Neolithic settlements rom Hunedoara-Cimitirul Reormat and Grdina Castelului and a

position concerning some opinions regarding the neo-eneolithic acts rom the south-west o ransylvania.Patrimonium Banaticum 1 (2002) 4376.


27/29


28/29


130

K, N. 1979: Funde der ltesten phase der Linienbandkeramik in Sdtransdanubien. Mitteilungen desArchologischen Instituts der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschafen89 (1979) 1346.

K, N. 1982: Ausgrabungen in Berettyjalu-Herply und in Szentpterszeg-Krtvlyes. Mitteilungen desArchologischen Instituts der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschafen 1011 (19801981 [1982]) 211214.

K, N. 1983: Die Krs-Starevo-Kulturen und ihre Beziehungen zur Linearbandkeramik. Nachrichten ausNiedersachsens Urgeschichte52 (1983), 91130.K, N.M, J. 1972: Sdliche Einflsse im rhen und mittleren Neolithikum ransdanubien.AlbaRegia

12 (1972) 93105.K, N.M, J. 1977:Die Linienbandkeramik in der Groen Ungarischen ieebene.Studia Archaeologica

7, Budapest.K, N.S. K, J. 2000: elepls a legkorbbi jkkori srokkal szakkelet-Magyarorszgrl Eine Siedlung

mit ltestneolithischen Grbern in Nordostungarn. Herman Ott Mzeum vknyve39 (2000) 4576.K, D. 1981: Neue Funde der ltesten Linienbandkeramik von Eisleben, Kreis Wanzleben. Beitrge zur Ur-

und Frhgeschichte 1, Berlin 1981, 129143.K, J. 1977: Die rhe und mittlere Phase der Neolithikums au der Teissrcken.Acta Archaeologica Academiae

Scientiarum Hungaricae29 (1977) 317.

K, K. 2007: A tiszaszls-aszparti kzps neolitikus telepls legkorbbi idszaknak vizsglata a kronolgiais a kulturlis kapcsolatok tkrben Te earliest occupation period o the Middle Neolithic settlement atiszaszls-Aszpart in the light o its chronological and cultural connections. srgszeti Levelek/PrehistoricNewsletter89 (20062007 [2007]) 1938.

K, I. 1944:A Krs kultra Te Krs culture.Dissertationes Pannonicae Ser. II. 23, Budapest.L, C.-M.L, Gh. 2006: Architectura neoliticului i epocii cuprului din Romnia I. Neoliticul.

Iai.L, Gh. 1975: Unele probleme ale ceramicii neoliticului din Banat. Banatica3 (1975) 724.L, Gh. 1976: Fragen der neolithischen Keramik in Banat.Archaeologica Austriaca13 (1976) 203234.L, Gh. 1977: Gornea. Preistorie.Reia.L, Gh. 1979:Neoliticul Banatului.Bibliotheca Musei Napocensis 4, Cluj-Napoca.L, Gh. 1980:Cteva probleme privind sritul neoliticului timpuriu din nord-vestul Romniei Einige

Fragen zum Ende des Frhneolithikums aus Nord-West-Rumnien.Acta Musei Napocensis 17 (1980) 1330.L, Gh. 1981: Die Periodisierung der Vina-Kultur in Rumnien. Prhistorische Zeitschrif56 (1981)

169196.L, Gh. 1983: Die Vina-Kultur und ihre Beziehungen zur Linienbandkeramik. Nachrichten aus

Niedersachsens Urgeschichte52 (1983) 131176.L, Gh. 1984: Neoliticul timpuriu n Romnia Das Frhneolithikum in Rumnien. Acta Musei

Porolissensis8 (1984) 49104.L, Gh. 1991: Freidor-ob. I, Hladnik (jud. imi). In: Lazarovici, Gh.Draovean, F. (eds): Cultura Vinca

n Romnia. imioara 1991, 4648.L, Gh.N, J. 1983: Neoliticul dezvolata din Nord-vestul Romniei (Slajul, Stmarul Clujul).Acta

Musei Porolissensis8 (1983) 6992.L, S. A. 1998: Liubcova-Ornia.Monografie arheologic. rgovite.M, J. 1978: Excavation at Bicske. I: Te Early Neolithic Te earliest Linear band Ceramic. Alba Regia 16

(1978) 960.M, J. 1982:A magyarorszgi neolitikum kutatsnak j eredmnyei. Az idrend s a npi azonosts krdsei

[New results in the Research o the Neolithic in Hungary. Questions o the Chronology and Identity]. Budapest.M, J.S, E. 2008: Te excavations o Early Neolithic sites o the Krs culture in the Krs valley, Hungary:

Te final report. Vol. IIIII. Budapest.S. M, M. 1979: jkkori telepls Berettyszentmrton-Morotva lelhelyen Neusteinzeitliche Siedlung im

Fundgebiet Berettyszentmrton-Morotva. Dri Mzeum vknyve1978 [1979] 3556.M, P. 2009: Balmazjvros-Darucsorda-kt 1. szm lelhely kzps jkkori leletanyagnak eldolgozsa

[Evaluation o the Middle Neolithic finds rom site 1 in Balmazjvros-Darucsorda-kt]. BA Dissertation.Manuscript. Szeged.

M, V. 1949: South-Eastern elements in the prehistoric civilization o Serbia.Annual o the British School atAthens 44 (1949) 258306.

N, M. 1977: Nouvelles donnes sur la nolithique ancien dOltenie. Dacia21 (1979) 151.


29/29


O, K. 2007: Te pottery rom Ecsegalva 23. In: Whittle, A. (ed.): Te Early Neolithic o the Great HungarianPlain.Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 21, Budapest 2007, 491620.

P, H. 1993: Studien zur Chronologie und Kulturgeschichte der Jungstein-, Kuper- und Frhbronzezeitzwischen Karpaten und Mittleren aurus.Rmisch-Germanische Forschungen 52, Mainz am Rhein.

P, J. 1980: ltere Linearkeramik in der Slowakei. Slovensk Archeolgia28 (1980) 790.

R P. 1976: A Krs kultra leletei iszajenn Funde der Krs-Kultur in iszejen. Archaeologiai rtst103 (1976) 171189.R P. 1983: A korai neolitikumbl a kzps neolitikumba val tmenet krdsei a Kzp- s Fels- iszavidken

Questions o transition between the Early and Middle Neolithic in the Middle and Upper isza Region.Archaeologiairtest110 (1983) 161194.

R P. 1986: Megjegyzsek az alldi vonaldszes kermia kialakulsnak krdshez. In: Nmeth, P. (ed.):Rgszeti tanulmnyok Kelet-Magyarorszgrl. Folklr s Etnogrfia 24 (1986) 2567.

R P. 1988: A isza-vidk kulturlis s kronolgiai kapcsolatai a Balknnal s az geikummal a neolitikum,rzkor idszakban. jabb kutatsi eredmnyek s problmk [Te cultural and chronological connections othe isza region with the Balkans and Aegean at the time o the Neolithic and Chalcolithic. Recent researchresults and problems]. Szolnok.

R, P. 1989: Chronological Framework o the Early and Middle Neolithic in the isza Region. In: Bknyi, S.

(ed.): Neolithic o Southeastern Europe and its Near Eastern Connections.Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 2,Budapest 1989, 233251.R, P. 1992: Te neolithic o the Great Hungarian Plain and the Vina complex. Balcanica23 (1992) 147165.R, P.A, A. 2003: Te internal relations o the Alld Linear Pottery culture in Hungary and the

characteristics o human representation. In: Jerem, E.Raczky, P. (Hrsg.): Morgenrot der Kulturen. FrheEtappen der Menschheitsgeschichte in Mittel- und Sdosteuropa. Festschrif r Nndor Kalicz zum 75.Geburstag.Budapest 2003, 155182.

S, V. 2006: Te Anzabegovo-Vrnik Group and the Problems o the Late Neolithic in Eastern Macedonia. In:Brukner, B.Vorgi, B. (eds): Current problems o the transition period rom the Starevo to the Vina Culture.Zrenjanin 2006, 147163.

S, W. 1991: Untersuchungen von Vina-Belo-Brdo. Banatica11 (1991) 133140.S, W. 1995: Vina-Studien. radition und Innovation in Sptneolithikum des zentralen Balkanraumes

am Beispiel der Gekeramik aus Vina-Belo Brdo. Habilitationsschrif. Fakultt r Orientalistik undAltertumswissenschaf der Ruprecht-Karls-Universitt Heidelberg.

S, W. 1996: Te relative and absolute Chronology o Vina: new evidence rom the type site. In: Draovean, F.(ed.): Te Vina culture, its role and cultural connections. Bibliotheca Historica et Archaeologica Banatica 2,imioara 1996, 141162.

S, M. 1997: Ein Beitrag zur Gliederung der stlichen Linearbandkeramik. Versuch einer Merkmalsanalyse.Saarbrcker Studien und Materialen zur Altertumskunde45 (19951996 [1997]) 998.

G. S, J. 1983: A Dlkelet-Alld neolitikumnak nhny idrendi krdsrl ber die chronologischenFragen des Neolithikums im sdstlichen Alld.Archaeologiairtest 110 (1983) 243246.

, O. 1964: Remarks to the chronology o the Krs group.Archaeologiairtest91 (1964) 6786.V, M. 1936: Preistorijska Vina. IV. Beograd.Z, E. 1964: Considerations sur la civilization de Cri la lumire des son dates de Le. Dacia N. S. 6 (1964)

552.

07 Horvath Drasovean Remarks on the Connections Between Banat and the Great Hungarian Plain

Documents

Transcript of 07 Horvath Drasovean Remarks on the Connections Between Banat and the Great Hungarian Plain