Hoard, Phase, Period? Round table conference on the Koszider problem

Koszider:

Hoard, Phase, Period?

Round table conference on the Koszider problem

Edited by

MAGDOLNA VICZE, ILDIKÓ POROSZLAI † and PÁL SÜMEGI

MATRICA MUSEUM – SZÁZHALOMBATTA

2013

Published by:

“Matrica” Museum

Tel./fax: +36 23 354 591, +36 23 359 848

E-mail: [email protected]

This volume was funded by the following institutions:

Banner János Archaeological Foundation

Environmental history of Hungary

NRDP (NKFP) 5/0063/2002

National Cultural Fund Committee

Manuscript closed on 31. March 2006

ISBN 978 963 219 951 1

© “Matrica” Museum, 2013

All right reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrival system,

or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, digitised, photocopying,

recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher.

Desktop editing by BAUSZ Kft.

Contents

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

The Koszider Phase at Százhalombatta-Földvár

Ildikó Poroszlai † . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Koszider: break or continuity?

Magdolna Vicze . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Remains from the Koszider Period from the area of Budapest

László Reményi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

The Southern Alföld Group of the Vatya culture

Klára P. Fischl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Problems of the Koszider Period in Transdanubia

Viktória Kiss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Finds of the Tumulus Grave culture from Balatonboglár-Borkombinát

Szilvia Honti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

The chronological role of chipped stone implements in the Early and Middle Bronze Ages

Tünde Horváth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

A comparative geoarcheological report and environmental history of the Bronze Age tell

of Polgár-Kenderföld

Pál Sümegi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

Bird bone remains from Bronze Age settlements in the Carpathian Basin

Erika Gál . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193

Memorandum on the Koszider Conference

Magdolna Vicze–Ildikó Poroszlai . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205

Programme of the conference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208

When, in October 1999 – following an inspiring conference on the questions of the Hungarian Bronze

Age at Tata1

– we decided with Ildikó Poroszlai to continue such professional meetings at Százhalom-

batta, we did not know that in 2003 it would be dedicated to the memory of our professor, István Bóna.

However, it was even more unexpected that, two years later in 2005, while translating the submitted

manuscripts and editing the volume, the editorial board would suddenly loose one of its members and

become both emotionally and logistically paralyzed by the circumstances.2

Nevertheless, the two

remaining editors had the determination that once when conditions become settled they would pursue the

original plan and publish the volume. But, as it is the nature of life, by the time we could have resumed

work our original financial resources were cut. Quite unexpectedly in 2013 the chance to finish the

publication of the volume became a possibility again.

One might ask: is there any sense in publishing papers of a conference held ten years ago? The answer

lies in the very subject of the original meeting and therefore in that of the volume, i.e. the subject of the

Koszider Phase. By the beginning of the new millennium it became evident that we need to redefine and

reflect on the original concept of the so-called “Koszider-Period”, that had been discussed and analysed

in so many ways since its first definition in the 1950s.3

Different opinions and theories were based on the

results of different independent excavations, regional observations and findings. It can be seen clearly

from the literature that those, who studied the era primarily through metal finds, it was natural for them to

interpret the findings as a treasure-horizon. Tell researchers, where the relics of the mentioned era came

to light from pits only – ignoring the possible effect of later incidental erosive activities – believed to find

proof for the appearance of an immigrant/occupant, in some cases destructive(?), new population without

local precedents. Those who had access to mostly unpublished material of cemeteries ranging over

several periods might refer to a long lasting immigration, infiltration that perhaps happened in many

waves. Most of these studies refer to, or mention the climatic and environmental change of the period as

one of the components of the transformation evidently present in the archaeological material. The

decades around the turn of the millennium saw that the results of long lasting tell-excavations started to

correlate. Ceramic finds of the so called “Koszider-Period” were found in houses and intact layers on

more and more locations, thus it became clear that we are looking at something different than just a phase

of hoarding bronzes. Consequently the economic and social transformation – probably partially induced

7

In memoriam István Bóna

In memoriam Ildikó Poroszlai

Foreword

1 Julianna Kisné Cseh and Lajos Kemecsi (eds): Middle Bronze Age in Transdanubia and its relations. Conference in Tata, October 1999.

in: KMMK 7, Tata 2000, 7-252.

2 In the beginning of 2005, Ildikó Poroszlai, member of the editorial board died tragically and unexpectedly. All of a sudden, Magdolna Vicze,

the other Bronze Age expert of the board was left to herself with managing a museum, an Archaeological Park and two vast international

research projects that caught her unprepared by the unexpectedness and their volume.

3 Thorough summary of research history is not the objective of this Prologue, our aim is to outline the intellectual, professional context at the

time of the conference.

by climatic changes, as well – were explained in as many ways in time and space as different the finds,

sites and contexts were at the individual researcher’s disposal. The only real consensus was that a change

has occurred and everything related to that should be called “Koszider”. This is why it was possible that,

at the above mentioned, splendid conference in Tata in 1999, nearly all lecturers had a different,

individual interpretation of their understanding of the Koszider-Period. Therefore we decided to organise

the roundtable meeting in Százhalombatta especially to debate on this anomaly within our research, and

named it “Opinions on the Koszider – Roundtable discussion”.

The outcome of the conference is distinctly visible in a number of independent articles, professional

discussions, and studies that have been published since then. Notwithstanding that the volume has not

been published so far, the meeting reached its aim and a concept that is acceptable to all, was born. Based

on this, in short it can be assumed that the Koszider-Period is a complex, varied, long, independent period

that in itself may include more sub-phases, and is the last phase of the Middle Bronze Age of the

Carpathian Basin. Referring back to the question above: does it make sense to publish the studies after

such a long time? As a positive answer two main arguments can be mentioned. One is that the meeting

and therefore this volume as well, has a special research historical importance even today. We have no

knowledge of any volume of research studies on Hungarian Early and Middle Bronze Age that

concentrates on clarifying one single, relatively short time period, the content and conceptual meaning of

which was unclear for more than 50 years. The other reason is given by the subject matter of our

profession, i.e. the archaeological material itself. The material culture is eternal and its publication has

imperishable significance. The articles in this volume contain information and archaeological material

typical for the Koszider Phase from all regions of the country – Transdanubia, Middle-, North- and

East-Hungary – that have not or only partially been published so far.

Last but not least, we would like to thank all our persistent and faithful co-authors, who patiently held

their manuscripts and suffered the fact that their intellectual product had not been published for such a

long time. Thank you.

Magdolna Vicze – Pál Sümegi

editors

Százhalombatta–Szeged, 30 March 2013.

Foreword

8

This paper aims to introduce a new perspective on the perception of the Koszider Phase. The possibility

of the workshop-like conference and the capacity of its volume limit the extent of this article, thus it

cannot aim to be a complete and detailed comprehensive study of the Koszider problem. Therefore the

primary objective is to challenge the present interpretative norm on the question of the Koszider Phase.

For this purpose I am going to examine the evidence from the Middle Bronze Age cemetery of

Dunaújváros-Duna-dûlõ employing some aspects of typology.

One of the most discussed subjects of the 20th

century Hungarian Middle Bronze Age studies has

been the question of the processes that led to the termination of the era and to that of the Bronze Age tell

forming cultures in the Carpathian Basin. The accepted culture-historical paradigm was that an invasion

from West and Central Europe destroyed the Middle Bronze Age lifestyle and polities. This event was

first identified and defined through its bronze hoards and thus was called the Koszider horizon

(Mozsolics 1957; 1967; more recently with an overview: David 2002). It had been looked upon as a

relatively swift and violent period that produced number of bronze hoards, and the destruction and/or

abandonment of the majority of the large tell settlements occupied over hundreds of years. What followed

was the occupation of the Carpathian Basin by the people of the so-called Tumulus culture, which on its

turn signalled the beginning of the Late Bronze Age. Fairly soon, after the identification of the Koszider

bronze hoard horizon, it was recognised that the Koszider horizon did not consist of a typical bronze

working tradition solely as was thought previously, but actually a distinctive ceramic style could be

recognised and assigned to it as well (some of the more significant references are Bóna 1958; 1975;

Kovács 1975; 1977; 1978; Bóna-Nováki 1982; etc.). By 1992 it became evident that we are dealing with a

substantially longer time period (see the top 2-3-4 layers of the tell-settlements and the published

chronological table in Bóna (ed.) 1992). It cannot be considered as a short transitional period any more,

when the major tell settlements of the Carpathian Basin were destroyed, and their population driven away.

On the contrary it is a much longer period with uniformity in the production of both bronze and pottery

artefacts (Bóna-Nováki 1982; Bóna 1992, 34; Kovács 1978; 1989; 1989/a; V. Szabó 1999, 62). There are

certain new motives, pottery types, forms, etc., which appear all over the Carpathian Basin regardless of

“cultural” territories or boundaries. Focusing primarily on ceramics, it is fairly easy today to identify

pottery products datable to this period. As both our understanding and the size of the archaeological

material of this time span are increasing the need for an established inner chronological division is growing.

Since the works of Christian Jürgensen Thomsen and Oscar Montelius typology has been accepted as

the oldest and most fundamental tool for organising, classifying archaeological assemblages (Trigger

15

Koszider: break or continuity?*

MAGDOLNA VICZE

* This paper was presented at Százhalombatta between 31. March – 1. April 2003 at the conference called “Views on the Koszider problem”.

Manuscripts were submitted and accepted in 2003–2004.

1989, 80-87, 157; Renfrew-Bahn 1994, 23). Typology for a long time was believed to be and in certain

cases still is the core of our discipline. However, working with typology could be illusive, as more often

than it should, typological seriation becomes the end of analysis instead of being its beginning or rather

its means. To avoid the comfortable trap of “typology for typology’s sake” it is essential to have a clearly

defined purpose for classification (Adams-Adams 1995, 157). Classification is but a means to discover

quantitative relationship between types that in the end leads to identification of qualitative differences

and the meaning behind them (Adams-Adams 1995). This is the line of reasoning I am planning to apply

in order to find quantitative regularities – based on the Dunaújváros Vatya material – that could

eventually be the starting point for the classification of the inner chronological phases of the often and

widely discussed Koszider pottery. Following that, I am going to propose some possible interpretations

for the processes reflecting in such a characteristic and extensive pottery tradition. However it must be

kept in mind that pottery tradition is but only one aspect of the many faceted archaeological material.

The purpose of the classification presented below is to outline the basic physical characteristics of a

chronological sequence that I believe is imbedded in the material. It aims to identify and classify some of

the regularities that can be attached to the Koszider Phase pots and establish their distinct typological

features. The basis for this are the 226 urn burials – dated to this period – from the Dunaújváros-

Duna-dûlõ cemetery. This site is the actual burial ground of the eponymous tell-settlement: Dunaújváros-

Koszider-padlás, where the first bronze hoards and the first “Koszider pots” were found in 1951 and 1953

(Mozsolics 1957; Bóna 1958). The 226 burials comprise of close to five hundred vessels. A thorough

typological study and classification of these indicated a continuous development and gradual changes

that seem to reflect advance in time. Based on the analysis of stylistic characteristics two chronological,

i.e. an Early and a Late Koszider Phase could be outlined. In the following I am going to highlight some

of the main physical features that distinguish these two phases.1

Early Koszider characteristics

The classical Vatya III pottery tradition is characterised primarily by its non-decorative nature combined

with simple forms. It is a probable assumption to speak of the start of a new era in pottery tradition when

new decorative elements, new forms, new vessel types, and complex designs appear within a primarily

non-decorative vessel making tradition. This process could quite evidently be observed within the

archaeological material presently under discussion. The general taste, style and/or fashion in pottery

making are changing. The basic and already known decorative elements and some new ones are applied

and combined more abundantly and freely. It can be said that a tendency away from the simple towards

the complex can be observed. There are three basic vessel forms (urn, bowl, cup) generally used in the

burials, and in the following the principal new distinctive features in respect of these will be discussed.

The classical urn shapes of the Vatya III phase are becoming even more uniform; in many cases it is

impossible to distinguish the urns of these two periods from one another. However there are some new,

distinct characteristics typical for the new phase, like the appearance of cylindrical neck, or large flaring

rim, and the thick rim breaking downwards with a sharp angle (Fig. 1:3).2

Besides the formative

innovations, however the most outstanding changes occur in the “decorative program” of the urns. In this

classification category a tendency from the simple towards the complicated can be observed. It must be

kept in mind, that the final end product of this process is the type of vessels that characterise the

Magdolna Vicze

16

1 The detailed introduction of these can be seen in: Vicze’s PhD dissertation that has been published since the manuscript of this paper in 2011.

2 Examples for this within the Dunaújváros cemetery can be found in graves: 171, 439, 494, 552, 566, 569, 560, 608, 642, 643, 786, 829, 830, 811,

841, 883. Parallels for these can be found at Cegléd-Öregszõlõk (Tari 1992, Pls. 4.3,5; 5.3; 7.5,6; 11/A.2,3), Törtel (Kovács 1974, Fig. 2.5),

Kelebia (Bóna 1975, Pls. 58.7; 60.5; 61.7), Csanytelek-Palé (Lõrinczy-Trogmayer 1995, Figs11.6; 12.5,6; 18.5.), Lovasberény (Miske 1898,

Fig.4), Ócsa (Vásárhelyi 1897, 296.1,2), Csongrád-Vidre-sziget (Szénászky 1977, Pl. 27.4,10), Százhalombatta-Alsószõlõk (Poroszlai 1990,

Figs. 4.4,10; 6.5), and from Dunakeszi-Kopolya (Kovács 1989, Figs. 4.3,6). These are all cemeteries where vessels from both the classical

Vatya III and the Early Koszider phases can be found, thus indicating a gradual, inner shift from the established traditional forms.

Rákóczifalva group (Kovács 1966; 1981). At first it might seem difficult to see the connection between

those elaborately ornamented vessels and the urns of this period, therefore it need be stressed here, that

the transformation of the pottery style actually starts in this phase. Most of the basic component elements

of the later much more complex decorations appear now. The small and blunt knobs on the belly of the

vessels become more articulated, i.e. larger and pointy.3

Small but sharp and pointy knobs appear on the

shoulder of the pots also, either alone, or in groups with occasional incised lines or garland decoration

(Fig. 1:3). Channelling or grooving of these knobs, the first so-called “Füzesabony element” in the

pottery tradition (Kovács 1989a, 19), can also be observed.4

The motifs fashioned with parallel incised

lines become more geometric and restricted in closed compositions. Besides the incised net and zigzag

motifs that had already been in use, zigzags only, devoid of their vertical lines running from their pointed

ends, become much more presented. The so-called “standing” zigzag on the body was a new invention

(for example, see on the urn from Grave 560), as was the collar-like zigzag around the neck of the vessel

from Grave 552 (Fig. 1:4).5

The small lentil-like depressed pattern alone or arranged in groups or

sometimes in a pattern, has already been dated to the Koszider Period and was among the first recognised

trademarks of the Early Koszider Phase pottery (Mozsolics 1957; Kovács 1978). In the Dunaújváros

cemetery this decoration is present on several of the grave goods that are dated to this period.6

To sum up

the characteristic traits of the urns of the Early Phase, it can be said that the basic and already known

decorative elements were used more abundantly both individually and also in compositions, and on

occasion combined with new components. Nevertheless it is quite clear that all changes were founded

within and rose from the Vatya III tradition.

The comprehensive study of the entire cemetery material (i.e. over 1600 burials of a timeframe of

almost a thousand years) led to the recognition that bowls represent the most dynamic vessel type within

the Vatya pottery making tradition. The emergence of the Early Koszider Phase can be noted by the

appearance of new elements and innovations that are the most numerous within this ceramic type. Large

number of the traditional bowl shapes can be found with new decorative elements. Furthermore three

new, primarily closed types with several variations appeared. To start with, the three new bowl types are

introduced, and then the new decorative motifs on traditional forms are discussed. The first new bowl

type has a straight rim that has three distinct variation; a) the straight rimmed bowl has conical or

spherical body, with or without a handle;7

b) the straight rim has small horizontal extruding knobs, a

conical body, and in some cases one small loop handle starting from the rim;8

c) the straight rim has

horizontal extruding single or double sharp knobs with vertical perforations (Fig. 2:4 a–c).9

The second


17

3 Burials in the Dunaújváros cemetery with this characteristic urns are the graves of 849, 1123/c, 1140.

4 A combination of knobs with or without channelling and accompanying incised lines on the shoulders and/or belly of the vessels in the

Duna-dûlõ material can be seen on urns from Graves 80, 101, 135, 439, 441, 558, 572, 807, 811, 863, 875, 882, and 883. Examples of these

decoration motifs or their combinations came to light from other Classical and Late Vatya sites like for eg.: Dunakeszi-Kopolya (Kovács

1989, Figs. 4.3,6; 5.6), Újhartyán-Vatya (Kada 1909, Figs. II.8; III.6,8), Százhalombatta-Alsószõlõk (Poroszlai 1990, Figs. 4.4; 6.8),

Cegléd-Öregszõlõk (Tari 1992, Pls. 4.3; 5.2; 7.3,5; 8.6,7; 9.4,6; 11.2,4,6; 11/A.1), etc.

5 Corresponding “standing” zigzags are known e.g. from Alpár (Bóna-Nováki 1982, Pl. XLI.4), and Bugac-Félegyházi út (Vicze 1986, Pl.

XXV.4), and a collar-like zigzag from Cegléd-Öregszõlõk (Tari 1992, 6.1).

6 These graves are 21, 807, 811, 845, 851, 883.

7 At Dunaújváros-Duna-dûlõ these can be found in Graves 619, 756, 751, 779, 807, 845, 854+, 875. Bowls basically belonging to this cate-

gory, but have an inner “ledge” and/or knob came from Graves 408, 441, 804, 837, 845, 1139. Analogous pieces are known from

Lovasberény-Jánoshegy, Kelebia (Bóna 1975, Pls. 49.2; 65.3,12; 66.3,10, 12), Baks-Homokbánya (Fischl-Kiss-Kulcsár 1999, Figs. 20.5;

35.5), Cegléd-Öregszõlõk (Tari 1992, Pl. 21.3,5), Ócsa (Vásárhelyi 1897, 296.7), Újhartyán-Vatya (Kada 1909, Pl. II.19,23), Dunakeszi

(Bóna 1975, Pls. 54.12,14), Dunakeszi-Kopolya (Kovács 1989, Fig. 6.4), Százhalombatta-Alsószõlõk (Poroszlai 1990, Figs. 3.2,5; 4.6; 6.3;

7.6), Csongrád-Vidre-sziget (Szénászky 1977, Fig. 26.2), Csanytelek-Palé (Lõrinczy-Trogmayer 1995, Fig. 19.4), Kerekegyháza, and Izsák

(Vicze 1986, Pl. XXVII.4,5; XXXI.5).

8 Graves with this type of bowls are 553b, 830, 841, 847, 854+, 865, 871, 883. Parallels are known from Alpár (Bóna-Nováki 1982, Pls. V.6;

XXII.4; XXIII.1), Lovasberény (Miske 1898, Fig. 10), Lovasberény-Jánoshegy (Bóna 1975, Pls. 50.2), Kelebia (Bóna 1975, Pls. 67.3),

Dunakeszi-Kopolya (Kovács 1989, Fig. 13.1-3), Százhalombatta-Alsószõlõk (Poroszlai 1990, Figs. 7.1; 8.9), Adony (Jungbert 1990, Pl. II.12).

9 In the Dunaújváros material such bowls come from Graves 21, 172, 569, 796, 883. Counterparts can be found at sites like Alpár

(Bóna-Nováki 1982, Pl. XVII.1), Százhalombatta (Bóna 1975, Pl. 56.2,5), Kelebia (Bóna 1975, Pl. 68.1), Dunakeszi-Kopolya (Kovács

1989, Fig. 13.4), Százhalombatta-Alsószõlõk (Poroszlai 1990, Figs. 4.8; 6.6), and Izsák (Vicze 1986, Pl. XXXI.4).

novel bowl type has a straight, but inner segmented rim with small horizontal or vertically standing double

knobs, with or without small handles (Fig. 2:5).10

The third innovation of this phase among the bowls is a

type with inverted rim, pronounced shoulder, with or without small knobs and handles (Fig. 2:6).11

Similarly to the case of the urns, already know but rarely applied decorative elements appear more

frequently and larger in size, as for example knobs on shoulders and bellies of classical bowl types

(Fig. 2:7).12

Also knobs combined with vertical bands of lines ending in small circular impressions, or

supplemented with concentric lines and/or a ring of small impressions both around the knobs and/or the

base of the vessel can be found on almost all of the previously known types, but most frequently

embellish the so-called Swedish-helmet type (Fig. 2:9).13

The combination of parallel incised lines with

knobs, and/or with small incised dots or with the lentil like impressions can be looked upon as

characteristic features of this phase (Fig. 2:8).14

In conclusion, on the changes within the bowl

manufacturing tradition it can be inferred that besides the increased number of decorations, similarly to

that of the urns, several innovations of new forms have been introduced as well. An advance from the

simple toward the complex can be observed, with a strong tie to original conventions.

The cups and small mugs deposited as grave furniture in the Vatya burials are usually not decorated at

all. Decorated pieces are exceptions and quite rare. The ones with some decoration are usually of foreign

origin or show influence of neighbouring pottery traditions during the early and classical phase of the

cultural complex. However some decorative elements and new variations among the cups were also

produced during this phase. One of the distinguishing new components on cups was the strap handle that

arches over the rim of the small vessels and became their most characteristic feature (Fig. 3:4).15

The

small lentil-like impressions are applied on the small one-handled cups as well, and are arranged in

horizontal or vertical groups (Fig. 3:3).16

Similarly to the other two main vessel types knobs alone and in

combinations with incised lines or grooving appear both on the body and sometimes on top of handles but

are going to be more pronounced during the next stage of the Koszider Phase.17

Similar is the case of the

so-called “ansa lunata” handles. These are going to be one of the most typical classificatory indicators of

the Later Koszider Phase, although their basis and starting point can be observed among the Early

Magdolna Vicze

18

10 Bowls representing this type come from Graves 118, 642, 829, 1123b. Similar pieces from sites belonging to this phase are from Alpár

(Bóna-Nováki 1982, Pl. XXIII.2), Bölcske (Poroszlai 2000a, Fig. 33.1,2), and Százhalombatta-Földvár (Poroszlai 2000, Pl. XVII.1).

11 In the Duna-dûlõ cemetery these types come from Graves 556, 729, 807, 811, 865, 882. Corresponding types were found at Alpár

(Bóna-Nováki 1982, Pls. VIII.15; XI.3; XIII.4), Kelebia (Bóna 1975, Pls. 67.11,12), Dunakeszi-Kopolya (Kovács 1989, Fig. 6.1), and

Százhalombatta-Alsószõlõk (Poroszlai 1990, Fig. 3.10).

12 These bowls came from Graves 33, 568, 630, 680, 687, 832a, 864.

13 Graves 503, 748, 768, 830, and 849 from the Dunaújváros-Duna-dûlõ cemetery have bowls displaying parts and combinations of these deco-

rative elements. There are a large number of corresponding pieces coming from sites like Alpár (Bóna-Nováki 1982, Pls. III.9; V.1-2; IX.7;

XIX.5; XX.4; XXI.8), Cegléd-Öreghegy (=Öregszõlõk) (Bóna 1975, Pls. 43.11; 45.9; 46.7), Százhalombatta (Kovács 1969, Fig. 3.5),

Újhartyán-Vatya (Kada 1909, Pl. II.20,22), Csongrád (Szénászky 1977, Fig. 28.9), Csanytelek-Palé (Lõrinczy-Trogmayer 1995, Figs. 12.3;

15.3; 17.2), Izsák-Kormos-tanya (Vicze 1986, Pl. XXX.5), Kelebia (Bóna 1975, Pls. 65.5,8,11; 66.5,8,11; 67.7,9), Baks-Homokbánya

(Fischl-Kiss-Kulcsár 1999, Figs. 6.3,10; 33.3; 43.8; 47.6; 59.5), Cegléd-Öregszõlõk (Tari 1992, Pl. 21.6,9), Adony (Jungbert 1985, Pl. IV.3),

Csongrád-Vidre-sziget (Szénászky 1977, Fig. 26.8), and Bugac-Félegyházi út (Vicze 1986, Pl. XXIV.5).

14 Some examples can be seen from Dunaújváros in Graves 440, 832b, 882. Several of the above mentioned citations have parallels for this type

of decoration as well.

15 Some examples for the handle reaching over the rim can be seen on cups from Graves 101, 227, 494, 556, 560, 586, 619, 762, etc. Some par-

allels to this latter handle type are known from Csanytelek-Palé (Lõrinczy-Trogmayer 1995, Figs. 12.2; 19.3; 20.6 etc.), Csongrád-Vidre-

sziget (Szénászky 1977, Figs. 27.2; 28.1), Adony (Jungbert 1985, Pl. IV.10), Baks-Homokbánya (Fischl-Kiss-Kulcsár 1999, Figs. 12.8;

19.8; 59.3; 60.4), Cegléd-Öregszõlõk (Bóna 1975, Pl. 46.6; Tari 1992, for eg. Pls. 15.5,6,9; 16.1,4,8; 17.2,3; 18.4,9; 19.4,8), Alpár

(Bóna-Nováki 1982, Pls. XX.11; XLVIII.4; XLIX.1, etc.), Dunakeszi-Kopolya (Kovács 1989, Fig. 3.9), Törtel (Kovács 1974, Fig. 3.7),

Kelebia (Bóna 1975, Pl. 70.26), and so on.

16 Comprehensive study of this decorative element with comparative parallels can be seen in Kovács 1978. Graves with such decorated cups in

the Dunaújváros-Duna-dûlõ are 101, 117, 556, and 568. Other parallels can be found in abundance on all of the Vatya sites that have an Early

Koszider component. Just to mention some of the more known examples, like the ones from Csanytelek-Palé (Lõrinczy-Trogmayer 1995, Figs.

12.4), Cegléd-Öregszõlõk (Bóna 1975, Pl. 46.5; Tari 1992, Pl. 14.12), Százhalombatta-Alsószõlõk (Poroszlai 1990, Figs. 4.7; 5.5,10), etc.

17 Such cups are from Graves 630, 674, 757, and 762 in the Duna-dûlõ material. The cup from Grave 762 is more elaborate than the others, sim-

ilar examples to it are known from Kiskunfélegyháza (Vicze 1986, Pl. XXXV.2), Dunaújváros/Dunapentele-Kosziderpadlás (Mozsolics

1957, Fig. 4.1-4,8,9). Cups with small knobs on their handle are known from other Vatya-Koszider sites like Cegléd-Öregszõlõk (Tari 1992,

Pl. 14.6), Alpár (Bóna-Nováki 1982, Pl. I.10; XLIX.4,6,9; L.3), Törtel (Kovács 1974, Fig. 3.4), and Kelebia (Bóna 1975, Pl. 70.29).

Koszider cups of the Dunaújváros-Duna-dûlõ cemetery (Fig. 3:6).18

Other characteristic novelty of this phase

is a new short and stout cup form that has a short funnel-like neck, a sharp shoulder line, a rather conical lower

body, with or without an omphalos-base, and a loop handle arching over the neck (Fig. 3:6).19

In the light of

the above said it is possible to observe that some changes, alterations with the cup forms and their

decoration occurred. In other words something new has been started which nevertheless is still deeply

rooted and integrated in the Vatya III pottery making tradition.

Early Koszider Phase in the Vatya ceramic tradition has already been identified earlier at some sites

under the terms “Vatya-Koszider”, like at Alpár (Bóna-Nováki 1982, 68 pp) and Százhalombatta-

Alsószõlõk (Poroszlai 1990, 213) or as the “beginning of the Koszider Period” as at Törtel (Kovács 1974,

47). Thus in the light of those identifications and the Dunaújváros-Duna-dûlõ cemetery it becomes

possible to delineate some quantitative regularities that lead to a sound classification of the Early

Koszider ceramic material. To summarize them it can be said that the start of this new phase can be

observed when small changes, like thickening of the rims, or the increase of everted rim sizes, or new

decorations, like small lentil like impressions, knobs, incised lines, appear on the long established,

conventionally non-decorated pottery types (Figs. 1:3,4; 2:7–9; 3:3). A point of particular importance is

that these seemingly minor changes occur together with new forms, like new bowl types (Figs. 2:4–6),

and innovated shape modifications, like the cylindrical neck of the urns or the big loop handle of the cups

(Figs. 3:3,4). It has already been observed that this development is a gradual one devoid of any dramatic

large changes. So far as it can be seen the pottery technology, in respect of fabric and making, follows the

long established practices. The arguments put forward above are enough to show that the following

published Vatya sites can be dated to the Early Koszider Phase: Dunakeszi-Kopolya (Kovács 1989),

Százhalom- batta-Alsószõlõk (Poroszlai 1990), Törtel (Kovács 1974), most of Cegléd-Öregszõlõk (Bóna

1975; Tari 1992), Lovasberény-Jánoshegy, Kelebia, Áporka, Izsák II (Bóna 1975), Mogyoród (Kovács

1978), the earliest phase of Alpár (Bóna-Nováki 1982), Baks-Homokbánya (Fischl-Kiss-Kulcsár 1999),

and most of the pits and graves at Csongrád-Vidre-sziget (Szénászky 1977). Sites like Újhartyán-Vatya

(Kada 1909; Bóna 1975), Adony (Jungbert 1985), and Dunaújváros-Duna-dûlõ had already been in use for

a long time before the advent of this period and continued to be in use afterwards a well. The Koszider

Period occupation of major Vatya settlements like Sárbogárd, Pákozd, Aba, Solymár, Soroksár, is well

established, but their true chronological depth cannot be identified until the material is fully published.

The cemetery at Csanytelek-Palé was doubtless established during the Early Koszider Phase and was in use

into the time period of the Tumulus Culture, seen in stray finds (Lõrinczy–Trogmayer 1995, Fig. 2.4 and 7).

Unfortunately, the major part of the cemetery was destroyed (Lõrinczy-Trogmayer 1995, Fig. 1), thus one

cannot have a true quantitative representation of the material. Nevertheless, a few of the burials can still be

identified as Early Koszider ones, like NO 16, 23, 40/b, 50, 65, 64, 62 (Lõrinczy-Trogmayer 1995).

Late Koszider characteristics

It has already been emphasised that an ongoing process can be witnessed in which the Early Koszider

Phase is but the first half only. Strictly remaining within the realm of the ceramic tradition the tendency of

away from the simple towards the more and more complex is still the most outstanding characteristic of

this phase. Vessels exhibiting somewhat bizarre, baffling, and seemingly illogical decorations and shapes

became the norm in the Late Koszider Phase. The Vatya potters seemed to have stepped over an

intellectual or aesthetic threshold and entered an experimental stage within their craft, thus producing a


19

18 Pseudo-ansa lunata handles come from Graves 117, 550, 680 and 821 from Dunaújváros.

19 The representatives of this cup type within the Duna-dûlõ cemetery come from Graves 441, 722, 726, 756, 786, 796, and 811. Parallels were

found at Csanytelek-Palé (Lõrinczy-Trogmayer 1995, Fig. 16.3), Lovasberény (Miske 1898, Fig. 16), Százhalombatta-Földvár (Kovács

1969, Fig. 3.7), Újhartyán-Vatya (Kada 1909, Fig. II.9), Cegléd-Öregszõlõk (Tari 1992, Pls. 16.9; 18.11), and Kelebia (Bóna 1975, Pl.

69.16).

somewhat flamboyant style, which is in major contrast to the more reserved style of the earlier

generations. Two, geographically limited, local groups have already been distinguished belonging to this

phase, namely the Rákospalota (Kovács 1975) and Alpár (Bóna-Nováki 1982) groups. The archaeological

find material belonging to the Late Koszider Phase from Dunaújváros-Duna-dûlõ displays the well-known

characteristics of both the Rákospalota and Alpár groups. The pottery decoration style becomes flamboyant

but at the same time traditional forms were still in use or were the transmitters of the new ornaments. The

products of both the ceramic tradition and the bronze industry of the period have been investigated and

discussed in detail by many studies like for e.g. Mozsolics 1957; Bóna 1958; Mozsolics 1967; Hänsel

1968; Kovács 1975, and 1975a; Kovács 1977; Kovács 1978; Kovács 1984; Bóna 1992; David 2002; and

so forth. The Dunaújváros-Duna-dûlõ cemetery material only supplements and refines our knowledge on

this subject. Following the above introduced structure the typical features will be discussed in accordance

with the most common vessel types i.e. urns, bowls and cups.

It is interesting to note that the basic proportions and the form of the urns do not go under major

changes, but rather some segments of the body display modifications. One of these is the thick,

triangle-shaped, segmented rim of the urns;20

another characteristic feature is the two relatively small

handles positioned opposite to each other on the neck and shoulder of the vessel.21

The number of the

cylindrical necked urns (a form being introduced during the previous phase) increased significantly (Fig.

1:5).22

Among the new decoration elements the application of the hatched triangle on the shoulder and the

belly of the urns seem to be a rarity apart from the Dunaújváros cemetery.23

This decoration in almost all

cases appears in combination with other ornaments which on the other hand are the most frequently

applied designs. These motifs are the small circular impressions, encircled or channelled bosses and

zigzags placed on the shoulders of vessels (Fig. 1:5–7).24

Next to the application of knobs and hatched

triangles, the extensive use of the garland motif as an adornment also on the shoulder is a typical

representative of this phase. In fact, the garland motif was first in use in the previous phase, but during

this stage it is applied in seemingly endless variations, both in style and execution (Fig. 1:7).25

There is

one more important innovation in this phase and that is the application of ansa lunata type of handles on

small urns (Fig. 4:1). Actually not many cases are known so far from Vatya materials/territory, but the

ones with ansa lunata handles (four in number) can be called the par excellence examples of the Late

Koszider pottery style. All the individual decorative elements and the variety of their application are

represented on those urns displaying, in their most characteristic composition, the complete decorative

program of the Late Koszider potters. The four emblematic pots are known from Dunaújváros-Duna-dûlõ

Grave 1109 (Vicze 2011, Pl. 219.11), Rákospalota (Kovács 1975, Fig. 3.16), Soroksár (Bóna 1975, Pl.

131.10) and Kerekegyháza (Bóna 1975, Pl. 131.7; Kovács 1975, Fig. 3.14; Vicze 1986, Pl. XXVII.3).26

Magdolna Vicze

20

20 Good representations of such rim forms can be seen in Graves 83, 273, 551, 562, 565, 577, 578, 580, 590, 618, 651, 733, 734, 761, 777, 996,

1109, and 1143.

21 Such handles in the Duna-dûlõ cemetery are known from Graves 83, 273, 283, 580, 590, 591, 607, 667, 770, 773, 775, and 784.

22 See Graves 23, 83, 165, 270, 555, 561b, 639, 640, 671, and 1142.

23 This type of decoration is however most frequently found on the necks and shoulders of one-handled cups. In the Dunaújváros-Duna-dûlõ

cemetery this motif can be seen on the urns of Graves 567, 555, 664, 682, and 996. Other sites with such decorated urns are

Százhalombatta-Földvár (Poroszlai 2000, Pls. XIX.3; XXVIII.4), and Solymár-Mátyás-domb (Endrõdi 1984, Fig. 5.4).

24 Examples from the Dunaújváros cemetery came to light from Graves: 85a, 83, 96, 270, 273, 283,435, 555, 562, 561b, 567, 577, 580, 582,

591, 607, 640, 651, 661, 663, 664, 667, 671, 681, 682, 733, 754, 761, 770, 774, 775, 777, 784, etc. Examples of these motifs can be found on

all vessel types and sites with Koszider-type pottery. See, e.g., Alpár (Bóna-Nováki 1982, Pls. IV.3; VII.5; IX.11; XVI.2; XVIII.5; XXI.3),

Csanytelek-Palé (Lõrinczy-Trogmayer 1995, Fig. 14.4), Cegléd-Öregszõlõk (Tari 1992, Pls. 11.4,6; 22.2; 27.2), Százhalombatta-Földvár

(Poroszlai 2000, Pls. I.7; IV.3; IX.1), Baks-Homokbánya (Fischl-Kiss-Kulcsár 1999, Figs. 11.5; 12.1,3; 13.2; 17.1; 19.3; 28.1; 50.8; 60.2),

Újhartyán-Vatya (Bóna 1975, Pl. 32.2), Izsák-Kormos tanya (Vicze 1986, Pl. XXX.1), etc.

25 These can be seen on urns from Graves 23, 96, 270, 607, 640, 663, 682, 734, 761, and 775 at Dunaújváros. Parallels for the incised and

smoothed garland motifs with or without knobs and short vertical lines are abundant, some typical examples can be mentioned from

Lovasberény (Miske 1898, Figs. 2; 4; 5), Pákozdvár (Marosi 1930, Figs. 67, 68, 69), Soroksár-Várhegy (Endrõdi –Gyulai 1999, Figs. 8.5;

16.7), Újhartyán-Vatya (Kada 1909, Pl. III.8; Bóna 1975, Pl. 32.4,9), Cegléd-Öregszõlõk (Tari 1992, Pls. 7.3; 9.6; 9.8; 11.4,6; 11A.1; 13.1;

Bóna 1975, Pls. 42.1,3,4), Dunakeszi-Kopolya (Kovács 1989, Fig. 4.3), Lovasberény-Jánoshegy (Pósta 1897, Figs. 4; 17), Áporka (Bóna

1975, Pl. 39.1,3,4,7), Ercsi (Bóna 1975, 56.1), Kelebia (Bóna 1975, Pl. 72.5,8), Dunavecse (Vicze 1986, Pl. XXII.9), Izsák-Kormos tanya

(Vicze 1986, Pl. XXX.1), etc.

26 It is important to note that these pots in this paper are discussed from their decorative aspects solely.

All of them have three handles, two larger ones with ansa lunata opposite each other and a third, smaller

one arching over the shoulder-neck line (Fig. IV). Small knobs on the opposite side of the small handle are

located on the shoulder of two of these vessels: two knobs on the Kerekegyháza and three on the

Dunaújváros piece. In the case of the latter, the bosses are encircled with pierced dots. The smoothed

garlands combined with groups of short vertical lines and lentil-like impressions can be seen on the urn

from Kerekegyháza. Groups of short vertical lines can be found on the rim of the Dunaújváros and on the

shoulder of the Rákospalota (Kovács 1975, Fig. 3.16) vessels. Diverse combinations of the lentil-like

impressions are present on three of them. Incised zigzags occur on two of them. Lastly, multiple horizontal

lines on the necks of the vessels are a distinct decorative feature of especially this phase, seen on the

Rákospalota pot and present in some cases together with bordering lines of incised dots on several of the

Dunaújváros urns.27

Bosses with channelling on their upper sides on the bellies of vessels are also

characteristic for the Late Koszider Phase and can be seen on the Rákospalota vessel and three Dunaújváros

urns.28

One point of particular interest here is that besides all these elaborated and rich decorations there are

some urns without any ornamentation at all, thus the old tradition or style is still present or on demand.

Similarly to the Early Koszider Phase it is again the bowls that display the experimenting approach of

the potters most clearly. The innovated new forms, like the straight and inverted rimmed bowls, prevail

and their typical single or double knobs become larger and more pronounced. A good example for the

straight-mouthed conical-shaped bowl with extruding horizontal double knobs from the rim can be seen

in Grave 562 (Fig. 2:10).29

The number of the bowls with an inner segmented rim and standing vertical

double knobs increased and so did the sizes of the knobs (Fig. 2:11).30

Whereas there were only four

examples of the inverted bowls in the earlier phase, during this time they became the largest group among

the bowls with several variations (Fig. 2:12a–b).31

Furthermore this bowl type becomes one of the most

characteristic vessel types of the Late Koszider and Post-Koszider phase all over the Carpathian Basin.

They become supra-cultural and can be found on almost all sites with Late Middle Bronze Age or

Tumulus Culture material. It should be noted here that the average, classical bowl type with everted rim,

arching neck and conical body almost completely disappears by this time. Its place is taken over by a

variation – the production of which was started during the Early Koszider phase – which has large flaring

rim, straight or cylindrical neck and usually conical body with one small loop-like handle on the neck or

shoulder of the vessel. This type displays the widest variety of the new decorative elements like for e.g.

the thin, long bosses, bosses (sometimes five of them) with complex channelling, smoothing or

encircling with incised lines (counting from 5 up to 14 lines), in some cases with additional dotted line

ornamentations, incised lines both on neck and body of bowls (Figs. 2:13–15), etc. A variation with

pedestal – the so-called Csépa type (Bóna 1982) – is also an innovation of this phase (Fig. 2:14).32


21

27 Like the ones from Graves 23, 555, 577, 682, and 784.

28 Those came to light from Graves 96, 555, and 577.

29 Analogies are known from sites like Lovasberény (Bóna 1975, Pls. 50.3; 51.6), Százhalombatta, Törtel, Nagylók (Bóna 1975, Pl.

56.2,5,4,9), Solymár-Mátyás-domb (Endrõdi 1984, Fig. 4.1,4), Alpár (Bóna-Nováki 1982, Pl. VIII.8; XXXII.12; XXXIII.5), Izsák I,

Izsák-Kormos-tanya (Vicze 1986, XXIX.5; XXX.6), Dunakeszi-Kopolya (Kovács 1989, Fig. 13.4), Adony (Jungbert 1985, Pl. IV.5),

Bölcske (Poroszlai 2000a, Fig. 33.1-3), Cegléd-Öregszõlõk (Tari 1992, Pl. 26.1) Lovasberény (Miske 1898, Fig. 10), and Újhartyán-Vatya

(Kada 1909, Pl. II.17).

30 Good examples came to light from Graves 55, 578, 577, 590, 621, 666, 671, and 770. An analogue piece from another Vatya site comes from

Cegléd-Öregszõlõk (Tari 1992, Pl. 26.4).

31 There are variations deep and shallow, with conical or slightly bulging sides, also with single or double bosses arranged in symmetrical order

on the curving shoulder. Such bowls in the Dunaújváros cemetery came from Graves 575, 580, 618, 598, 627, 625, 653, 656, 651, 660, 662,

667, 714, 671, 681, 777, 857, 860b, 873, and 1114. Parallels to this bowl type and its variations are known from Dunakeszi, Adony (Bóna

1975, Pl. 54.13; 56.6), Lovasberény-Mihályvár (Bándi-Petres 1969, Fig. 7.9), Solymár-Mátyás-domb (Endrõdi 1984, Fig. 3.3), Alpár

(Bóna-Nováki 1982, Pl. X.3), Dunakeszi-Kopolya (Kovács 1989, Fig. 7.13), Soroksár-Várhegy (Endrõdi-Gyulai 1999, Fig. 12.1; 13.3), and

Cegléd-Öregszõlõk (Tari 1992, Pls. 26.7; 30.6).

32 Examples of the complex decorations on this bowl type can be seen in Graves 96, 104, 113, 164, 273, 555, 561b, 584, 610, 617,639, 640, 663,

664, 668, 670, 784, and 1142. Parallels with similar decorations are known from sites such as Alpár (Bóna-Nováki 1982, Pls. XVIII.5;

XXI.10; XLV.1), Baks-Homokbánya (Fischl-Kiss-Kulcsár 1999, Fig. 28.1), Törtel (Kovács 1974, Fig. 2.7), and Százhalombatta (Kovács

1969, Fig. 4.2; and 1975, Fig. 3.18) just to mention some of the more known ones.

Applying decorative elements, such as incised or smoothed groups of lines, on the base of the bowls

became the average custom in this period, which was then in use in wider areas and later periods like, that

of Rákóczifalva (Kovács 1981, Fig. 2.9) or Hajdúbagos (Kovács 1970, Figs. 3.9; 4.17; 7.6; 9.10), just to

mention two of the most important eponimous sites. One more interesting aspect should be mentioned

here, namely in comparison to other Late Koszider sites, the number of the so-called Swedish-helmet

type of bowls is surprisingly low in the Dunaújváros-Duna-dûlõ cemetery.33

It might either be a question

of local preference or some other meaning the consideration of which lies outside the scope of the present

paper. Summing up, it is worth noting that the number of decorated bowls of all types has increased

greatly and in fact, the widest spectrum of experimentation with motifs and new or traditional decorative

elements and techniques can be observed during this phase.

The number of the cup types and their variations has expanded during the Late Koszider Phase in the

Dunaújváros-Duna-dûlõ cemetery. The most outstanding changes are the amount of the decoration and

an increase in the size of this specific vessel category. Distinguishing types of the period are the ones that

have everted rim, long conical or slightly arching neck (taking up two-thirds of the total height), and

almost always have biconical body with three or four small knobs and elaborate mostly incised

decoration. The strap-like handle is pulled over the rim, forms an ansa lunata and rests on the shoulder.

The characteristic decorations are intricate incised and smoothed lines, dots, triangles, zigzags. Their size

varies from small cup size to almost jug height (Fig. 3:8–9). Not just their special decoration but their

proportions also demarcate these cups from the other types. Their character is slender and tall in contrast

to the usually small and stout quality of the other cups.34

Another cup type that has been evolved during

the previous phase, with a small, everted rim, cylindrical neck and spherical body, can be found in large

numbers in this phase. Both decorated and undecorated examples are known.35

The decorative elements

of this phase, like the horizontal groups of lines on the neck or the encircled or channelled knobs on the

belly, or the incised triangles and short vertical groups of lines alternating on the belly and small pedestal

stands in a few instances can be seen on them (Fig. 3:10). The classical Vatya small one-handled cup with

a funnel-like neck and globular body and its variations with ansa lunata arching handles still represent

the largest group among the cups (Fig. 3:7). Thus similarly to the other vessel-groups, among the class of

the cups, both the traditional forms and the new ones with new decorations were present together.

It has been attempted to demonstrate above that the Late Koszider pottery tradition was the direct

continuation of the Early Koszider phase, so in this way also that of the classical Vatya tradition. It seems

quite evident that the Vatya potters, in respect of the grave furniture, have turned from their “no-

decoration” or “little to nothing decoration” on the ceramic vessels custom and moved towards an

elaborate, even flamboyant ornamental style. The widespread distribution of similar motives and

combinations on pottery can be observed all over the Carpathian Basin at this time.36

It is important to

emphasise that the change of pottery style in the Vatya cultural complex has started from within a well

established tradition and it took some time for the new style to gradually develop into the well known and

Magdolna Vicze

22

33 There are two (Grs. 1114, 1109) and one probable pieces from all the burials. The one from Grave 1114 has a slightly unusual shape and is

very interestingly has no decoration at all. The possible Swedish-helmet type of bowl came from Grave 825.

34 Examples for this type in the Dunaújváros cemetery can be seen in Graves 228, 278, 562, 611, etc. Similar pieces are known from almost all

Koszider-Phase Vatya sites, like Dunaújváros-Kosziderpadlás (Mozsolics 1957, Fig. 4.7), Százhalombatta-Téglagyár (=Földvár) (Kovács

1975, Fig. 3.2,12; Poroszlai 2000, Pls. VIII.8; X.3;), Pákozdvár (Marosi 1930, Figs. 71.4; 73.2,3), Solymár-Mátyás-domb (Endrõdi 1984,

Fig. 8.1-3), Alpár (Bóna-Nováki 1982, Pls. XVI.1,4,10; 1.10), Cegléd-Öreghegy (Bóna 1975, Pl. 45.12), Lovasberény-Jánoshegy (Bóna

1975, Pl. 49.8), Csongrád-Vidre sziget (Szénászky 1977, Figs. 19.4; 26.4), and Baks-Homokbánya (Fischl-Kiss-Kulcsár 1999, Figs. 12.5;

21.5; 26.5; 29.2; 35.4), etc.

35 Similar ones came to light from Graves 113, 273, 582, 610, 625, 662, 1142, 1137, and 1149. Parallel examples are know from

Dunaújváros-Kosziderpadlás (Mozsolics 1957, Fig. 4.1-6), Iváncsa (Kovács 1977, Fig. 3.6), Budapest-Jászberényi út (Kõszegi 1984, Fig.

1.1), Törtel (Kovács 1974, Fig. 3.4), Dunaújváros-Kosziderpadlás (Kovács 1975, Fig. 3.3,4,7,8), Rákospalota (Schreiber 1967, Fig. 1.1,3),

Százhalombatta-Földvár (Kovács 1969, Fig. 4.3), Alpár (Bóna-Nováki 1982, Pls. I.10; XVI.2; L.3), Bölcske (Poroszlai 2000a, Fig. 26.4),

Csongrád-Vidre sziget (Szénászky 1977, Fig. 27.6,9), Csanytelek-Palé (Lõrinczy-Trogmayer 1995, Fig. 21.1), and elsewhere.

36 Just to mention some of these, see finds in Transdanubia like those from Somogyvár (Honti 1994; Honti 1994a), Veszprém (Kovács 1994;

Kiss 1997), and Esztergom (Torma 1977), Süttõ (Kovács 1988). In Eastern Hungary, where the existence of this phase was questionable not

such a long time ago, sites like Klárafalva (Fischl 1998) and Battonya (Szabó J. 1999) add new information.

recognised Rákóczifalva group of ceramic tradition. The length and the individual chronological position

of the Koszider Phase is clearly visible from the fact that the major cemeteries, that have been used over a

long period of time have considerable large number of burials, that could be dated to the Late Koszider

Phase. Such cemeteries are like for example Cegléd-Öregszõlõk (Bóna 1975; Tari 1992), Dunakeszi-

Kopolya (Kovács 1989), Újhartyán-Vatya (Kada1909; Bóna 1975), Lovasberény (Miske 1898), and so

on. There are several settlements that have been newly established (see Reményi this volume) or

continued to be in use during this chronological phase. These are Százhalombatta-Földvár (Poroszlai

1992; 2000), Alpár (Bóna-Nováki 1982), Solymár-Mátyás-domb (Endrõdi 1984), Soroksár-Várhegy

(Endrõdi-Gyulai 1999), Baks-Homokbánya (Fischl-Kiss-Kulcsár 1999), Pákozdvár (Marosi 1930), just

to mention some of the better known ones. It must be noted here, that during the Late Koszider Phase

some of the new elements can be associated to the Tumulus Culture pottery tradition. Nevertheless it is

important to understand that based on the ceramic typological evidence, introduced above it can be

inferred that the Koszider Phase as a whole has gradually developed from within the Vatya ceramic

tradition and as such it is its integral part.

It may be probable to suppose that we are observing a stylistic transformation that reflects changes

taking place within the entire society. The interesting question is the nature and cause of those changes

and it is on this point where this paper tries to introduce a different approach. Although the focus of the

work is on the internal tradition-changes of one single cultural complex, it is important to note here, that

stylistic changes at this time are in fact supra-cultural. Similar characteristic traits are recognised on

wider and wider territories continually (see footnote 36). It becomes more and more clear that many

things were happening at one time within and between the social groups of the Carpathian Basin, from the

eastern Alpine region to Transylvania. The reasons behind the impulses generating changes and

transformations within the cultural units – keeping their local nature, but at the same time somehow

linking them – are not clear (yet), but at the same time observable in the archaeological material.

However that much is apparent that we have to consider a complex time period with a complex situation.

A short term “single-variable” explanation – i.e., the appearance of the people of the Tumulus Culture –

can no longer be accepted. This paper tries to illustrate that processes responsible for the Koszider Phase

took a much longer time and have started from within each society before the arrival of Tumulus Culture

influences.

Several works discuss the phenomenon, especially in prehistory, when pottery can become vehicles

of expression for ideological, social and/or economic changes. In this respect especially useful Arnold’s

(1997) work where it is discussed and illustrated how ceramics can be used as channels for ideological

and social content (Arnold 1997, 157 pp). I believe that the above illustrated step-by-step development of

decorative style together with the exceptionally large number of the Early and Late Koszider burials

adequately illustrates two main points opposing the “Koszider-Horizon” hypothesis. Point a) is that the

change of the pottery style, while still based on the traditional forms and norms, reflects inner social

transformation. The thorough complexity of which cannot be well understood yet, but it is obvious that a

demand for finer and more decorated vessels rose (Early Koszider Phase) and exponentially increased

(Later Koszider Phase). Complex studies of both settlement and cemetery materials are needed to be able

to understand more clearly the nature and true meaning behind this interesting and new phenomenon.

Point b) is the time aspect which reflects in the relatively large number of Koszider Period burials of the

cemetery. The 226 graves represent almost 30 % of the total Vatya burials in the Dunaújváros-Duna-dûlõ

cemetery. Such a large proportion cannot suggest a sudden and short time period when there is no

evidence for disruption and destruction. On the contrary the society living at this specific location

continued to use the cemetery ground without interruption even in the Late Bronze Age, i.e. during the

Tumulus Culture period as well (Vicze 2011).

It was promised above, that this paper aims to introduce a new perspective and propose possible new

interpretation for some of the processes responsible for the Koszider Phase. Thus summing up, it was

attempted to illustrate that the extensive change marking the Koszider Period was not caused by a sudden

invasive pressure initiated by an outside influence, but actually was the result of a long, peaceful,


23

prosperous settled life represented by the tell settlements. All the visible changes in the pottery were

deeply integrated into and based upon the classical Vatya III potters’ tradition. Furthermore there are

several cemeteries and settlements that are in use continuously from the classical Vatya phase till the final

phase of the Koszider Period without any interruption. At the same time numerous sites are known (and

hopefully more will be found and/or identified) within our cultural complex that has been established

during the Koszider Phase, hence demonstrating a prosperous increasing population with adequate

economic and social power. During an earlier stage of research these newly established settlements were

thought to be founded by people forced to leave the tell settlements. The case of Dunaújváros-

Koszider-padlás, –Duna-dûlõ and other cemeteries (like Újhartyán-Vatya, Cegléd-Öregszõlõk, Száz-

halombatta-Alsó-szõlõk, Kelebia etc.) and settlements (like Százhalombatta, Lovasberény, Cegléd-

Öreghegy, Baracs, Nagykõrös, Alpár, etc.), where life remained continuous during the entire Middle

Bronze Age indicate the possibility for the earlier argument to be incorrect. Both regional and detailed

studies are needed to further enlarge our knowledge of the social, economic, ideological and the inner

cultural conditions, demands and/or pressures that induced the changes that are so clearly visible on the

archaeological (both ceramic and bronze) material of the Koszider Phase.

References

Adams, W. Y. and Adams, E. W. 1995: Archaeological typology and practical reality: a dialectical approach to artifact

classification and sorting. Cambridge.

Arnold, D. E. 1997: Ceramic theory and cultural process. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Bándi, G. – Petres, É. 1969: Ásatás Lovasberény-Mihályváron, AÉ 96, 170–77.

Bóna, I. 1958: Chronologie der Hortfunde vom Koszider-Typus, ActaArchHung 9, 211–243.

Bóna, I. 1975: Die mittlere Bronzezeit Ungarns und ihre Südöstlichen Beziehungen, ArchHung 49, Budapest.

Bóna, I. 1982: Alpár bronzkori rétegei, in BÓNA, I. and NOVÁKI, Gy., Alpár bronzkori és Árpád-kori vára, Cumania 7,

17–117.

Bóna, I. and Nováki, Gy. 1982: Alpár bronzkori és Árpád-kori vára, Cumania 7, 17–268.

Bóna, I. (ed) 1992: Bronzezeit in Ungarn. Forschungen in Tell-Siedlungen an Donau und Theiss, Frankfurt am Main.

David, W. M. A. 2002: Studien zu Ornamentik und Datierung der bronzezeitlichen Depotfundgruppe

Hajdúsámson-Apa-Ighiel-Zajta. Bibliotheca Musei Apulensis XVIII, Alba Iulia.

Endrõdi, A. 1984: Régészeti kutatás a solymári Mátyás-dombon (1972–1977), BudRég XXVI, 113–130.

Endrõdi, A. and Gyulai, F. 1999: Soroksár–Várhegy a fortified Bronze Age settlement in the outskirts of Budapest,

CommArchHung 1999, 5–34.

Fischl, K. 1998: Klárafalva-Hajdova bronzkori telltelepülése II, MFMÉ StudArch IV, 81–175.

Fischl, K. Kiss, V. and Kulcsár, G. 1999: Kora és középsõ bronzkori település Baks-Homokbánya (Csongrád megye)

lelõhelyen, MFMÉ StudArch V, 77–190.

Hänsel, B. 1968: Beiträge zur Chronologie der mittleren Bronzezeit im Karpatenbecken, Bonn.

Honti, Sz. 1994: A mészbetétes kerámia kultúrája leletei Somogyvárról, SMK 10, 5–22.

Honti, Sz. 1994a: Neuere Angaben zur Geschichte der Kultur der Transdanubischen Inkrustierten Keramik im Komitat

Somogy, Zalai Múzeum 5, 173–188.

Jungbert, B. 1985: Urnengräberfeld der Vatya-Kultur im Pfarrgarten von Adony, Alba Regia 22, 71–86.

Kada, E. 1909: Bronzkori urnatemetõ Vatyán (Pest m.), AÉ 29, 124–130.

Kiss V. 1997: A mészbetétes kerámia kultúrája késõi fázisának sírlelete Veszprémbõl, CommArchHung 1997, 39–49.

Kovács, T. 1966: Das kulturelle Bild der mittleren und oberen Theissgegend in der Spätbronzezeit, ActaAntiqua 10,

Szeged, 65–73.

Kovács, T. 1969: A százhalombattai bronzkori telep (The Bronze Age Settlement at Százhalombatta). ArchÉrt 96,

161–169.

Kovács, T. 1970: A hajdúbagosi bronzkori temetõ (Bronze Age cemetery at Hajdúbagos). FA 21, 27–47.

Kovács, T. 1974: Bronzkori urnatemetõ Törtelen (Bronze Age urn cemetery from Törtel). FA 25, 33–47.

Kovács, T. 1975: Historische und chronologische Fragen des Überganges von der mittleren und Spätbronzezeit in

Ungarn, AAH 27, 296–317.

Magdolna Vicze

24

Kovács, T. 1975a: Der Bronzefund von Mende, FA 26, 19–43.

Kovács, T. 1977: Funde der Metallkunst der Koszider-Periode aus Siedlungen und Gräberfeldern, FA 28, 41–65.

Kovács, T. 1978: Középsõ bronzkori edénylelet Mogyoródról, AÉ 105, 217–222.

Kovács, T. 1981: Zur problematik der Entstehung der Hügelgräber in Ungarn, SlovArch 29, 87–95.

Kovács, T. 1984: Koszider-Metallkunst und einige kulturelle und chronologische Fragen der Koszider-Periode, in TASIÆ,

N. (ed), Kulturen der Frühbronzezeit das Karpatenbeckens und Nordbalkans, Beograd, 377–388.

Kovács, T. 1988: Die bronzezeitliche Siedlung von Süttõ. Eine kurze Übersicht, SlA 36, 119–132.

Kovács, T. 1989: Die verbliebenen Funde des Bronzezeitlichen Gräberfeldes von Dunakeszi im Ungarischen

Nationalmuseum, CommArchHung 1989, 45–72.

Kovács, T. 1989a: Adatok az Ipoly-Zagyva vidék középsõ bronzkorához, AÉ 116, 3–21.

Kovács, T. 1994: Újabb adatok a mészbetétes kerámia kultúrájának fémmûvességéhez, VMMK 19–20, 119–132.

Kõszegi, F. 1984: Mittelbronzezeitliche Grabfunde aus Budapest X. Bezirk, Jászberény straße, ComArchHung 1984,

31–40.

Lõrinczy, G. and Trogmayer, O. 1995: Birituális vatya temetõ Csanytelek-Palén, StudArch-MFMÉ 1, 44–90.

Marosi, A. 1930: A pákozdvári õstelep, AÉ 44, 53–73.

Miske, K. 1898: Újabb leletek Lovasberényben, AÉ 18, 317–333.

Mozsolics, A. 1957: Archäologische Beiträge zur Geschichte der grossen Wanderung, AAH 8, 119–156.

Mozsolics, A. 1967: Bronzefunde des Karpatenbeckens. Depotfundhorizonte von Hajdúsámson und Kosziderpadlás, Bu-

dapest.

Poroszlai, I. 1990: Vatyai urnatemetõ Százhalombattán (Vatya urn cemetery at Százhalombatta). AÉ 117, 203–214.

Poroszlai, I. 1992: Százhalombatta-Földvár, in BÓNA, I. (ed), Bronzezeit in Ungarn. Forschungen in tell-siedlungen an

Donau und Theiss, Frankfurt am Main, 153–155.

Poroszlai, I. 2000: Excavation campaigns at the Bronze Age tell site at Százhalombatta-Földvár I: 1989–1991; II.

1991–1993, in POROSZLAI, I. and VICZE, M. (eds), Százhalombatta Archaeological Expedition, Annual Report 1,

13–74.

Poroszlai, I. 2000a: Die Grabungen in der Tell-Siedlung von Bölcske-Vörösgyûrû (Kom. Tolna) (1965–1967),

ActaArchHung 51, 111–145.

Pósta, B. 1897: Lovasberényi (Fehér m.) urnatemetõ (Urn cemetery from Lovasberény, Fehér county). AÉ 17, 304–317.

Reményi, L. this volume: Remains from the Koszider Period from the Area of Budapest, Vicze, M. – Sümegi, P. –

Poroszlai, I. (eds) Koszider: Hoard, Phase, Period? Round table conference on the Koszider problem, Matrica

Múzeum, 29–52.

Renfrew, C. and Bahn, P. 1994: Archaeology: Theories, Methods, and Practice, 2nd

edn. London.

Schreiber, R. 1967: A rákospalotai edénylelet (The Rákospalota pottery find). AÉ 94, 48–52.

Szabó, J. 1999: Früh- und Mittelbronzezeitliche Gräberfelder von Battonya, IPH VIII, Budapest.

Szénászky, J. 1977: A Vatyai kultúra leletei Csongrád környékén (Finds of Vatya Culture in the vicinity of Csongrád). AÉ

104, 18–46.

Tari, E. 1992: A ceglédi Öregszõlõk régészeti emlékei. (The archaeological finds of Cegléd-Öregszõlõk). Cegléd.

Torma, I. 1977: Ein Grab der Transdanubischen Inkrustierten Keramik aus Esztergom, MittArchInst 6, 26–37.

Trigger, B. G. 1989: A History of Archaeological Thought, Cambridge.

V. Szabó, G. 1999: A bronzkor Csongrád megyében (történeti vázlat a készülõ régészeti állandó kiállítás kapcsán),

Múzeumi Füzetek Csongrád 2, 51–117.

Vásárhelyi, G. 1897: Hamvedrekrõl az ócsai (Pest m.) urnatemetõbõl, AÉ 17, 295–296.

Vicze, M. 1986: Bács-kiskun megye középsõ bronzkori temetõi. Szakdolgozat, (Middle Bronze Age Urn Cemeteries from

Bács-Kiskun County). unpublished dissertation, ELTE, Budapest.

Vicze, M. 1992: Baracs-Földvár, in BÓNA, I. (ed), Bronzezeit in Ungarn. Forschungen in tell-siedlungen an Donau und

Theiss, Frankfurt am Main, 146–148.

Vicze, M. 2011: Bronze Age Cemetery at Dunaújváros-Duna-dûlõ. Dissertationes Pannonicae Ser. IV. Vol. 1. Budapest

2011.


25

Fig

.1.

Com

parati

ve

table

of

the

characte

ris

tic

urn

form

sand

moti

ves

betw

een

Vaty

aIII,

Early

and

Late

Koszid

er

Phase.

Scale

:1:8

1:

Gr.

36;

2:

Gr.

859;

3:

Gr.

807;

4:

Gr.

560;

5:

Gr.

555;

6:

Gr.

996;

7:

Gr.

682.

Magdolna Vicze

26


27

Fig

.2.

Com

parati

ve

table

of

the

characte

ris

tic

bow

lfo

rm

sand

moti

ves

betw

een

Vaty

aIII,

Early

and

Late

Koszid

er

Phase.

Scale

:1:8

1:

Gr.

735;

2:

Gr.

537;

3:

Gr.

37;

4a:

Gr.

756;

4b:

Gr.

829;

4c:

Gr.

172;

5:

Gr.

642;

6:

Gr.

556;

7:

Gr.

849;

8:

Gr.

768;

9:

Gr.

830;

10:

Gr.

562;

11a:

Gr.

578;

11b:

Gr.

546;

12a:

Gr.

660;

12b:

Gr.

85a;

13:

Gr.

784;

14:

Gr.

610;

15:

Gr.

113.

Magdolna Vicze

28

Fig

.3.

Com

parati

ve

table

of

the

characte

ris

tic

cup

form

sand

moti

ves

betw

een

Vaty

aIII,

Early

and

Late

Koszid

er

Phase.

Scale

:1:4

1:

Gr.

170;

2:

Gr.

53;

3:

Gr.

568;

4:

Gr.

762;

5:

Gr.

726;

6:

Gr.

680;

7:

Gr.

633;

8:

Gr.

278;

9:

Gr.

611;

10:

Gr.

1149.


29

Fig. 4. Three rare but at the same time typical Late Koszider small urns from Dunaújváros (1), Soroksár (2)

(after Bóna 1975, Pl. 131.10), and Kerekegyháza (3) (after Kovács 1975, Fig. 3.14 and Vicze 1986, Pl. XXVII.3).

Hoard, Phase, Period? Round table conference on the Koszider problem

Documents