J. Makkay 2007. The excavations of the Early Neolithic sites of the Koros Culture in the Koros Valley (Hungary). Quaderni Società Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia

– 7

FOREWORD

It is a particular pleasure and privilege to write a foreword to the first of three fundamental monographs onthe Early Neolithic of Eastern Hungary. It is a pleasure because of the long association I have enjoyed with theprincipal author, János Makkay, with the Szarvas Museum, with the landscapes of the Szarvas-Gyomaendrõdzone and even of the gulyas-pubs of those villages. I could fill many more than my allotted space with stories ofJános, the Szarvas campsite and the village police, the delights of frogs’ legs at Szarvas restaurants, theconsumption of 1.8m of Szarvasi kolbasz by a now retired colleague in one morning, the old men of Szarvas’Second World War experiences, and many, many more. But, as János notes in his own Preface, these are best leftfor memoirs (mine also are as yet unwritten – caveat emptor!).

It is a privilege because it is my view that the triad of volumes – one here published, two still in preparation –will form the cornerstone of Early Neolithic studies in Eastern Hungary for the remainder of this century. Manyof the most-quoted excavations ever conducted on Körös sites since 1960 are reported on here in the stratigraphic detail that they merit – not least Szarvas 8/23 and Endrõd 3/6, 3/35, 3/39 and 3/119. We have had to subsist for solong on the bare bones of these sites – the preliminary reports, the scattered publications of interesting finds – that the meat in this volume provides a full-scale feast to last for years. And, just as we are sated from volume one, thedelights of the next two volumes appear for our delectation!

This volume contains not only the stratigraphic details of most of the Körös sites that János has ever excavatedbut also an overview of the history of these excavations and a magisterial summary of the place of the Körös culturein Eurasian prehistory. The history of the struggle to achieve these results seemingly in the teeth of opposition frommost of the colleagues in the Archaeological Institute is vintage Makkay – and few former colleagues escapewithout blushes. Even so, the invective has been sensibly toned down by skilful editing by Paolo Biagi andElisabetta Starnini, without whose support these volumes would never appear (for full versions of past struggles,see the series of polemics [alas in Hungarian] from János’ own publishing house). János’ Preface is requiredreading for anyone seeking a view of the battlefield that has been Hungarian Neolithic studies since 1970.

The concluding summary is known to Körös aficionados from the Szolnok County Museum publication‘Between three worlds’ – those of the Mesolithic hunter-gatherers, the agriculturalists of Near Eastern originand the resulting Körös amalgam. Itself an amalgam of the two dominant aspects of János’ academicpersonality – inescapable Oriental diffusionism and local Hungarian innovation and independence, this viewgoes much further than the ecological determinism of recent years in advancing a persuasive case for culturalinteraction in the Alföld Plain.

There are other contributors to the volume, whose importance is not diminished by their occurrence inappendices. István Vörös’ account of the animal bones from a pit of the Latest Copper Age – one of the very fewsettlement finds coeval with the well-known barrows; Tibor Paluch’s excellent review of all known Körösburials; a report on the Szarvas 8/23 lithics set in the wider context of Starèevo-Körös and Vinèa lithics and theProto-Vinèa debate by Ma³gorzata Kaczanowska and Janusz K. Koz³owski; and, finally, the publication of aBoian II Importstück from Békésszentandrás-Furugy by János Makkay. Each appendix resembles a delightfulsoufflé after a Schweinshaxe of a main course.

I remember well a conversation with János in the late 1980s, when he confessed that, having excavated twomillion Körös sherds, he was hanging up his shovel. At the time, I realised that that surely meant a lifetime of digging. In his own Preface, János indeed confirms that the book you are about to read contains a whole lifetime’s academicwork – from 1953 to 2004. This is a unique opportunity to appreciate what that lifetime’s work has contributed toEuropean Neolithic scholarship. It is a matter of regret that the archaeologists who were so much a part of János’ lifeas well as contributing to the Körös story – Ida Bognár-Kutzian, Sándor Bökönyi and most recently Andrew Sherratt– are no longer with us to read it.

JOHN CHAPMAN

17/IX/2006

8 –

Interroga de diebus antiquis qui fuerunt ante te

(Deut. 4.32)

1. PREFACE

Since its foundation in 1959, the Archaeological Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences(abbreviated AI in the following) has carried out many excavations and field surveys all over the country.The Institute’s collections number hundreds of thousand objects, which derive from the Institute’s ownfield researches, which are now (or were) temporarily kept in the attic stores and basements of the AI, with the exception of the finds from my excavations, which were sent back to the local museums. Theirimportance is enhanced by the fact that most of them are supported by documentation, including fieldnotes, photographs, maps and drawings that provide valuable cultural contexts for these objects. Nowthese collections, whose final publication is in progress, are being sent back to their territoriallyresponsible local county or town museums. In the case of the materials from my Körös excavations, thefinds were first formally divided between the museums of Békéscsaba and Szarvas, both in the Körösregion of Southeast Hungary. As plans for the reorganization of the county and district museums havemoved forward in 2000 and again 2001, the authorities decided to unify the whole material into thecollections of the Szarvas Town Museum, the Tessedik Sámuel Museum. Unfortunately I had theopportunity to catalogue only a part of the assemblages, mainly reconstructed vessels and small finds (i.e.figurines, bone tools and others)1 in the inventory books of the Békéscsaba County Museums.

From 1988 onwards the central authorities endowed S. Bökönyi (the then Director of theArchaeological Institute) with excavation rights on the Microregional Area in the Körös Valley,covering the central part of the Szarvas Topography volume2. Since then, and till his death on December 25th, 1994, he did not continue to inventorise the excavated finds (animal bones included). As aconsequence, the huge assemblages of pottery etc. of Endrõd 3/119 have been awaiting the chance to becatalogued. At present the entire collection (inventoried and uninventoried assemblages together) ishoused in the Szarvas Museum and deposited in hard paper boxes on shelves according to theirexcavation contextual and box reference numbers (BRN, see Appendix VI). Nevertheless the findsstored in the Szarvas Museum are kept in an unsafe place and might be damaged3.

County Békés was the third in the general programme of the Hungarian Archaeological Topography, i.e. the Intensive Field Survey of Hungary, the most important of the AI archaeological programmes. In theearly 1960s, it was planned to cover the whole territory of Hungary, according to the 1963 districtorganisation of the country. The districts were the territorial units of the local government administrationfrom their introduction, in the XV century, to their dissolution in 1984. Especially in the 1960s, theyunderwent many local territorial changes, although the Topography plan insisted on keeping the originaldistrict map of 1964. As a result, the northernmost of the Szarvas volumes, dealing with the territory of thevillage Gyoma, became part of County Szolnok in 1975. While there were 105 districts in the territory ofHungary in the late 1950s, the Topography programme was planned to be carried forward, written andpublished in 105 volumes as a county-by-county survey. Most of the scientific and documentary materialsand the finances were provided by the AI, with additional projects given by different central programs of theAcademy and the State, and partly by the local county museums. The publication and sale of the individualdistrict volumes was an exclusive right of Budapest Academic Press. From the beginning to the end of theprogramme, in 1999-2000, only ten volumes were issued (SHERRATT, 1982: 287-288; 1983: 14-15).

After some introductory works (between 1970 and 1974, carried out by K. Bakay), in April 1974 theauthor was invited by the AI to organize the intensive field survey of the Szarvas district of the KörösValley (MAKKAY, 1989: 9-19). The topographic surveys of Hungary were conceived in response to twomajor problems or programs in the Hungarian prehistory, Roman Imperial, Early Medieval and Medievalhistory, in a period when the international scientific interest for prehistoric and later ages of this part of

– 9

1. These are mainly finds exhibited in the Tessedik Museum, Szarvas.2. Excavation permit of the Hungarian Excavation Committee, dated March 16th, 1988, and April 21st, 1989, nn. 213-06-109-/88A and 312-06-152-/89A respectively, both signed by S. Bökönyi. A similar situation is reflected by the permission he gave to I. Takács to publish the fish bones of Endrõd 3/119(BÖKÖNYI, 1992: 301, note 1). 3. According to Dr. Irén Juhász, the former director of the Tessedik Museum, Szarvas.

Europe had increased. In effect, present-day Hungary is located at the fringes of wide territories, whichplayed a decisive role in the development of human civilisation throughout the millennia: a. Here was located the northernmost border of more southerly cultural regions which had been the home of

prosperous farming cultures whose sedentary way of life had, by a process of cultural and/or demicdiffusion (throughout the Körös Culture), generated the earliest Central European farming cultures, or, asGordon Childe termed it, the Danubian I-III, i.e. the Linear Pottery Culture, its variants and laterdescendants (extending from the Atlantic Ocean to the Black Sea shores). It is a recent misconception thatthe LBK (Linienbandkeramik) people in central Europe descended en masse from the Balkan EN. Recentstudies on the European Mesolithic and LBK cranioskeletal remains point to a biological continuitybetween the Central European Mesolithic and the LBK (DAY, 2001: 221-224).

b. The vast steppic belt of Eurasia extends from the Far East, as a long and relatively narrow band, as far as theCarpathians. Its isolated, small enclaves, with semi-steppic environmental conditions, can be found also inthe Tisza and Körös Valleys west of the above-mentioned chain. This characteristic geographic area favoured the western expansion (or only distribution) of a number of oriental, originally steppe bound, cultures:Proto-Iranian (or Late Indo-Iranian) tribes or groups of the Yamna (Pit grave, Ochre grave or Kurgan) Culture in the second half of the 3rd millennium BC, Pre-Scythian Cimmerians around the turn of the 2nd and 1st

millennium BC (i.e. the grave of Gyoma [MAKKAY in MRT8, 1989: 214-219 and Pl. 29]), the Early IranianScythians from the middle of the VIII century BC (HAVASSY, 2001), and much later the invasions ordiffusions of their genetic successors, the Middle and Late Iranian Sarmatian, Roxolan, Jazygian and Alaniantribes. The distribution territory of most of these eastern conquerors (including groups of the much earlier PitGrave people) covered areas east and within the Tisza Valley and rarely extended to the west beyond it.

c. Mainly after the two Dacian wars of Emperor Traian, between 101 and 106 AD, the central parts of theCarpathian Basin (and especially the middle and lower Tisza Valley) were the scene of recurring warsbetween Rome and the martial tribes of the Alföld-Iranians (as for example the long lasting Sarmatianwars of Marcus Aurelius the philosopher). These military and political actions played a decisive role inthe later history of the Roman Empire, including also events of the centuries after the collapse of theWestern Empire (i.e. the Hunnic and Avar periods between the V and IX centuries AD).

d. In the wake of these Iranian peoples, there came subsequent waves of purely Asiatic nomad populationswho were horse breeders, first the Huns of Attila. His power centre, in the first part of the V century AD,was somewhere in the Tisza Valley, most probably around the Szeged Medieval Castle, just a few metresbehind the building of the Szeged Museum. The positive and also negative role the Huns played inshaping the fate of the Roman Empire is well known.

e. Peoples of similar inner Asiatic (probably Mongolian) background were the folks of Bajan: the Early Avars (called also Var+Chunni/Huns, with their Hungarian variant Várkonyok = the people of the Várkonys). They occupied the entire Carpathian Basin and founded their state-like empire, the Early Avar Khaganat, around 567-570 AD. Withthe further support of genetically related eastern newcomers (Várkonys and Onogurs) around 585, and againaround 675, the whole Carpathian Basin was kept under their rule until the end of the VIII century AD, when theAvar wars of Charlemagne (and the attacks of the Bulgarian kagan Krum in the following years of the IX centuryAD) put an end to the independence of the Late Avar proto-state.

f. The end of the IX century AD, which was the Dark Age of the early history of the Carpathian Basinwithout any, or with only a few written sources, saw the arrival of the Old Turkic (Onogur) tribes (theSeven Tribes’) of archedux Árpád, who conquered the Carpathian Basin between 894 and 907, andwith his people, ten centuries ago, founded the State of the Holy Crown of Hungary. Because somespecific characteristics of the early medieval history of Hungary determined archaeological activityduring the dark decades of the Communist rule, a few of them merit a short mention.During the four decades, from the end of the Second World War to the collapse of the communist system in

1990-1991, Hungarian archaeology was characterised primarily by sporadic sondages, rescue works and trialoperations, occasionally test excavations preparing larger (mostly never accomplished4) projects, and rarelyby large-scale or full excavations for the following reasons. Whereas prehistoric and early medieval

10 –

4. The Neolithic programme of the first five-year-plan of Hungarian Archaeology (FÜLEP, 1951: 11 and 12) including topics as the origin of Neolithiccultures and the ethnogenesis of their peoples, or to gain a full picture of the life of Neolithic man, was never accomplished. The planned programs wereamong others the exploration of the west Hungarian peat bogs, the Mesolithic period in eastern Hungary, research of the eastern [scil. Soviet] relations ofNeolithic cultures in Hungary. The Neolithic cultures of present-day Hungary have, except for the Körös Culture, very few eastern connections, if any,because there were no such connections during the entire Middle Neolithic period.

archaeology in the neighbouring socialist countries was, and still is, a reason of national pride, whose scope is todemonstrate the independent origin and development of these nations on their present territory since immemorial times (the Daco-Roman and Thracian theory) or since early Protohistory (Slavic migrations supposedly, andwrongly, sometimes dated even to the I-II centuries AD), in Hungary archaeology was considered only a part ofthe Marxist conception of history, based more on false ideological suggestions than facts. This idea was alsosupported by the fact that only in the VI-VIII centuries AD the Hungarian speaking groups arrived in theCarpathian Basin under the Avar rule and conduct, bringing with them their mixed Finno-Ugric-Turkic cultureand Finno-Ugric language (with strong Turkic influence), which has remained an isolated island in CentralEurope since then. As a consequence the whole prehistory and protohistory of the Carpathian region (beforethe VI century AD) was in no way related to the origin and later development of the Hungarian language andethnicity. This is the only possible conclusion, given that the Hungarian speaking tribes arrived here in theVI-VIII centuries AD, and subsequently the seven (or eight) Turkic tribes of Árpád conquered theCarpathian Basin at the very end of the IX century AD. The first was the shift of the Hungarian language (inconnection with the arrival of the Early and Onogur Avars), while the latter brought forth the foundation ofthe Hungarian State and Kingdom in 1000 AD that was marked by the coronation of the first HungarianKing, Saint Stephen, the great-grandson of Árpád on the Christmas day 1000, on the 200th anniversary of thecoronation of Charles the Great in Rome.

The Hungarian historical tradition is diametrically opposed to the Marxist ideology, which resulted in thesovietised Hungarian state (which had nationalised all the Hungarian museums and archaeological collections in1949), allocating virtually nothing for large excavations. Rescue operations were all that were left. During thethree decades before the start of our intensive field survey in 1974, only a few rescue excavations were carriedout in the entire territory of the Szarvas district during the Communist rule.

The scope of the Hungarian topography was to collect all the available data from the museum collections, the full literature of the identified and identifiable sites and also the stray finds. This county-by-county surveyconsisted not only in the systematic recording of the already known finds, but also fieldwork. On the basis ofthese documents, to conduct field surveys (terepjárás in Hungarian) in order to locate as many sites as possible,and then to identify part of them with the already known sources and data. The technical details of these surveyshave never been described in any Hungarian archaeological paper. When I wrote a summary of the works madein the Szarvas district, from the point of view of the fieldwork methodology, I realised that our methods wereessentially similar to those of R. McC Adams in the Near East (MAKKAY, 1989: 14-16).

However, we did not make any grid walking and square sampling (i.e. walking for 20 etc. minutes on asurface of 10 or 20 m2) although in the case of the presence of potsherds on the surface, we continued to work forhours or returned several times on the same spot. Our method was mainly walking on a field along parallel lines,some 10 m apart. All the sherds even smaller than 3 cm, both diagnostic and non-diagnostic, were collected.General field notes were taken to record sherd density and visibility as well as the general context of the surface(fallow, ploughed field, slope, possible habitation remains, irregular depressions as in the case of Sarmatiansettlements, etc.). All the areas of a given site were surveyed down to the lower parts of the levees or lowriverbanks, where the occurrence of potsherds on the surface usually ceased. However, the field collections weremade along transects radiating from the site in any direction. In most cases, we defined the site boundariesaccording to the sherds density, because a number of sherds had often moved to peripherical, unsettled parts byploughing or so-called digo5 activity. We decided that five potsherds was the minimum number required todefine a site, and that at least three were to belong to the same culture or period. Rarely we used the method of’shovel and trowel’ to define the exact attribution and distribution of the sherds. These small pits, however, arenot to be considered trial trenches because they were made only to collect a few more sherds.

These works in the Szarvas district began in 1974 and were completed in 1980. The manuscripts ready forprinting waited for nine years, until 1989, to be printed in their final form, and the editor in chief (L. Gerevich),the serial editor (E. Patek) and the director of the AI (S. Bökönyi) did not promote any earlier publication.

Sooner or later, however, it became clear that we were unable to understand the cultural aspectsrepresented in this area and their chronology only on the basis of surface collections. The solution seemed tobe the excavation of some sites where the surface finds were enough abundant and showed a well-definedcontext. The team members decided to open a few trial trenches according to their interests, and the present

– 11

5. For the interpretation of the word digó, digózás see MAKKAY (1989: 16 and 17). The Hungarian word digó, whose first occurrence dates to 1835, comes from the Venetian word dico i.e. digo ’I say’.

writer became responsible for the small-scale excavations at the Neolithic sites. This decision did not changethe excavation strategy of contemporary Hungary. Nevertheless these small-scale excavations, centred in alimited territory, allowed the definition of a fine internal chronology of the individual sites (as for example thecase of Endrõd 3/35 and 3/36; for more details, see below the description of the sites).

However, AI opposed our intentions, because of the orthodox archaeological theories and practices of thecountry. On the other hand, we were helped by the Békés Country Museums and Szarvas Museum and,occasionally, also the moral and financial support of the Central Offices of the Hungarian Academy ofSciences, especially of its then low-ranking member, Sándor Jankoviæ. I do not want to list here thecounteractions, obstacles and interdicts of the leading officials and also colleagues of the AI. Some details willform a part of my memories, still to be written6. Such restrictive measures continued until the publication of the Szarvas volume in 1989 (i.e. the year of the collapse of the communism). One of the most powerful opponentswas the then secretary of the Hungarian Communist Party group of the AI, who did his best to oppose ourexcavation plans and to discredit their results (KALICZ, 1980: 101)7.

Under these conditions, it was a real wonder that we were able to open 42 trial excavations at 33 sites. Fourwere supported and financed by the AI; one large-scale excavation, at Endrõd 39, was financed by the CentralOffice of the Academy, and 28 were (partly rescue) trial trenches funded by the central and independent budgetof the Topography8. The currently available cultural periodisation of the area clearly shows that the problems and internal chronology of the archaeological periods, which were not covered by the excavations, have remainedobscure or almost unresolved since then, as is the case for the whole Bronze and Iron Ages. As a consequence, we were incapable to achieve even an approximate idea of the local problems of the Copper Age Pit Graves, theMiddle Bronze Age Tell Cultures or the transition between the Early Iron Age and the succeeding Scythianperiod. On the other hand, the excavations carried out at Endrõd 3/6 have contributed to the discovery of asemi-subterranean house of the Pit-Grave Culture containing Cernavoda-Boleráz Culture potsherds associatedwith Corded Ware fragments of the Pit Graves (see below and figs. 49-54).

Nevertheless nine excavations (in twenty-two campaigns) were carried out by the author at eight Körös Culture sites between 1974 and 1989. They all are located south of the Triple Körös River, on levees along abandoned earlyHolocene riverbeds. They were selected for excavation mainly because of logistic reasons, as for example villagetraffic facilities, distance of sites from the villages where the labourers were enrolled, but first of all by the densityof surface sherds. The base of the excavations was established at the Szarvas Museum, where we were free to use all the building facilities. The museum staff gave valuable help in practical matters. Our foremen, József Tóth ofSzarvas and Géza Valuska of Endrõd, provided considerable expertise in techniques of careful excavation, firstlearnt during the excavations at Szarvas 8/23 and Endrõd 3/119 and skill in training the team of workmen drawnfrom the towns of Szarvas and later Endrõd. Tibor Kádas acted as photographer during the four campaigns atEndrõd 3/119 (1986-1989). During the same years, we employed a water sieve but the samples we collected(ca 50, weighing some 20 kg each) are still waiting for identification on the shelves of the Szarvas Museum.

Photographs and drawings were made by the author and, in 1986-1989, also by Sándor Õsy and other members of the AI staff. Ágnes Zamadits, Lucia Glattfelder-McQuirk and Katalin Horusiczky, AI experienced restorers,gave assistance during some excavation seasons, and made post-excavation pottery restoration in Budapest. Theirwork lead to the reconstruction of more than 500 vessels from my excavations. If one compares this number withthat of the 18 reconstructed vessels from one of the first extensive excavations at Nea Nikomedeia in Greece(YIOUNI, 1996: figs. 5.7, 6; 5.8, 4-6; 5.9, 1-3; 5.10, 7; 5.11, 1; 5.12, 4; 5.13, 1 and 2; 5.14, 2 and 7; 5.15, 2 and4; 5.17, 3), or from any other published or unpublished assemblage of complete/reconstructed EN vessels fromRomanian, Serbian, Macedonian, Thessalian etc. sites, it would be surprising to read that “The Körös culture ...does not have the same range of forms as the Starèevo culture” (WHITTLE et al., 2002: 64)9. Apparently withoutsome knowledge and the detailed analysis of the vessel shapes recovered from the Körös sites of Szarvas 8,Szarvas 23, Endrõd 6, Endrõd 35, Endrõd 39, Endrõd 119, Méhtelek-Nádas, Furta-Csátó and also of the final

12 –

6. One of these measures was the decision that sherds from our intensive field surveys had not to be washed in the Archaeological Institute. At the sametime, the official yearly reports prepared for, and sent to the Central Offices of the Academy always emphasised that the first ranked and most importantproject of the Archaeological Institute was and would be the Békés Topography. 7. According to this author the context of the white painted sherds of Szarvas 23 is uncertain (WHITTLE et al., 2002: 86 and 87). See MAKKAY (1982b: 37,note 60) and KALICZ and KOÓS (2000: 19, note 19) who doubt the correct restoration of the largest ALP clay figurine from Szarvas 8/107, without anydetailed information about the preconditions, reasons, way and method of its reconstruction. For the figurine see MAKKAY (1999a: 34; fig. 20).8. The second season at Szarvas 8/8 was financed by the Szarvas town council. The director of the Topography Project, Dr. I. Torma gave his constant support to our works.9. See the case of phases 1 and 2 of the Franchthi Neolithic pottery. There was there an abundance of pottery: over two and a quarter metric tons, more than one million pieces, three only of which are complete (i.e. reconstructed) vessels. See VITELLI (1993: xix).

report on Donja Branjevina (KARMANSKI, 2005) etc., such misinformed and unfounded opinions might lead tomisleading statements resulting in a further misinterpretation of important aspects of the Körös Culture.

Since the sites were located in agriculture fields, cultivated for several hundred years or millennia, abundantKörös pottery, bones and wattle-and-daub fragments were visible all over the field surfaces. However, it wasimmediately evident that the ceramic finds were grouped in very dense scatters in some slightly elevated parts.Usually a first test-trench or square test-pit was opened within these scatters. The twenty-two soundings of myeight excavations were successfully opened above rich rubbish pits and other Körös Culture features10.

The objective of our research was exclusively stratigraphic and typological, in order to obtain the mostcomplete record of the cultural sequence (internal chronology of the most relevant sites) and the inventory ofvessels, tools, small finds, etc. It was impossible to carry out any large excavation to locate structures such ashouses, ovens, working places, because of the limited budget at our disposal.

After the small-scale test-trenches opened at Szarvas 8/8 and 8/23, Endrõd 3/39, 3/35 (1974-1979), andalso the large-scale rescue excavation at Endrõd 3/39 (1976-1978), the preparation of the Szarvas Topographic volume (finalized 1980) prevented me from any further fieldwork. In 1979 and 1980, on the basis of theevidence gathered by our field surveys and small trial excavations, I conceived another programme toinvestigate some sites and some periods of the topography area with large-scale or even full-scale excavationsand other operations in a limited part of it, called micro-regional research. The then AI director, Dr. S.Bökönyi left my proposal unanswered. In 1983 he was still uncertain about two or three areas where toconduct the program11. The final decision taken for the central region of the Szarvas Topography volumewas the southern territory of the village Gyomaendrõd12. The excavations at Endrõd 3/119 and Endrõd 3/6were carried out in 1983-1989, within the scope of this second micro-regional survey project, and the smallKörös Culture site of Endrõd 3/119 was almost fully excavated.

My excavation strategy was simple. First, the uppermost ploughed soil was removed, sometimes usingheavy machinery (Szarvas 8/23, Endrõd 3/119). According to the Hungarian agro-technology, the averagedepth the disturbed soil was 30-40 cm and, in a few cases, 40-90 cm because of agriculture soil loosening.During this work, a number of steel wedges, some 80 cm long, and 30-40 cm from each other, were pulledalong at a depth of approximately 80 cm in the soil. This method loosens the soil below the plough zonecondensed under the pressure of heavy machinery such as tractors and combines. The purpose of this loosening is to improve the water-drainage capacity of the subsoil. Although this technique does not destroy everythingbetween the upper plough zone and the depth of 80 cm, it undoubtedly causes breakages and dislocation13.

Then a trench was excavated from the topsoil down to the natural soil (virgin yellow clay of the KörösValley, at a depth of 80-100 cm with a 20-30 cm thick subsoil just above it). It was considered appropriate tohave a separate designation for each excavation trench, square and ditch. They were labelled with Romannumbers: I, II, III etc. (or Arabic numbers, as was the case for Endrõd 3/119). In order to achieve anindependent record of the stratigraphic sequence, we used a method of horizontal arbitrary layers or spits, 20or 30 cm thick, 10 cm thick in a few specific cases (thin burnt layers, complete or almost complete vessels,heaps of broken vessel fragments, debris of wattle-and-daub or fired clay, built ovens and fireplaces, densescatters of sherds and net-weights, rarely stamped, and never plastered, house floors14, graves, etc.). Afterremoving each spit, the excavated surface was accurately cleaned. Once the undisturbed virgin soil had beenreached, the outlines of pits, postholes, every kind of intrusion and their discolouration patterns were recorded(photographed and drawn), and the excavation of their infill continued in 10 cm spits, mainly by hand. Thesequence within the Körös refuse pits with an almost homogenous fill, containing hundreds or thousands ofsherds, net-weights and animal bones, was hard to record and interpret. On the other hand, the relative absenceof good structural and architectural evidence is generally characteristic of the Körös sites, which often lie onthe top of the buried soil and close to the present surface, very much affected by agricultural activities.

Animal bones, wattle-and-daub fragments, heavy net-weights, stone implements and also small finds wereseparated from the potsherds immediately after their recovery. Nevertheless we never sorted out the potsherds on

– 13

10. The sounding carried out in 1975 by P. Árkus and J. Makkay at Endrõd 3/45 (figs. 119-122) did not yield any rich Körös assemblage (MRT8, 1989: 148).11. Promising candidates were the area of the Small Balaton program and also that around the surface coal mines in the southern part of Co. Borsod(Northeastern Hungary), northwest of the Tisza River.12. See the colour map at the back of BÖKÖNYI (1992): archaeological sites covered by the Microregional (or Gyomaendrõd) Survey Project.13. The best example is the large storage vessel recovered within one of the postholes of a surface-built long house of Endrõd 3/119 (House 2) in asacrificial context (MAKKAY, 2002, and the detailed description below, figs. 90 and 91). 14. See Endrõd 3/39, house in Trench XX and also house in Trench I, where the dense occurrence of complete and broken vessels marked the area of ahouse, and also Endrõd 3/119, House 2 (fig. 94, 3-6).

the site or during washing, and everything has been kept in our collections (down to the smallest potsherds) sincethen15. This is to be mentioned because in a few cases (as for instance at Endrõd 3/119, Pits 12 and 13) the amount of potsherds from the refuse pits was enormous16. The finds, subdivided into groups according theircharacteristics (complete vessels or fragments supposedly belonging to the same vessel, sherds, bones,net-weights, etc.) were washed using the Szarvas Museum facilities or were taken for treatment to the AI. Thepotsherds were first treated with dilute hydrochloric acid, and then rinsed with running water.

The profiles were drawn in areas with intersecting features or across individual features, and drawingsand photos were taken together with the baulks. Field notes were taken using a tape recorder, later fullytranscribed into a typewritten manuscript. This method favoured a more detailed description of thestructures, particular occurrences, etc. The field notes are kept in the archives of the AI and the HungarianNational Museum (MNM Adattár). As mentioned above, I never had access to the excavation records andother field notes taken by S. Bökönyi during his two or three campaigns carried out in 1987-1989 atEndrõd 3/119. This is the reason why in this case I have utilised my own field notes.

The results of these excavations were briefly summarised in the yearly reports published in the RégészetiFüzetek17. In the case of Endrõd 3/119, a longer preliminary report was issued in August 1989, shortly after theend of the fieldwork. Since this manuscript should have been finished in January 1990, given the short time at my disposal, I was able to produce only a summary of my work (MAKKAY, 1992). The full publication had not beenplanned until I took up the post of senior fellow of the AI at the end of 1993. After 1982, the oil crisis, and after1990, the changes, which took place in the Iron Curtain countries and the consequent economic and politicalcrisis, intervened in the preparation and publication of the final reports. This is the first of three volumes,which deal with the features and finds brought to light during these excavations. They will include the resultsof the still unpublished rescue excavations carried out at the Neolithic sites of Furta-Csátó18,Tiszacsege-Homokbánya, Battonya-Basarága and Méhtelek-Nádas19. The preliminary report or the finalpublication of specific categories of materials have been published in several articles written by the presentauthor since 1981 (MAKKAY (1963; 1965; 1969; 1974; 1978): painted pottery (MAKKAY, 1981), the Endrõdflint hoard (KACZANOWSKA et al., 1981), general questions (MAKKAY, 1983; 1996; 1999; 2000a; 2001),stamp seals (MAKKAY, 1984; 2005), chronological problems (MAKKAY, 1984a and 1984b), foundationofferings (MAKKAY, 1986; 1989a; 2002), contacts with the Alföld Linear Pottery (ALP) (MAKKAY, 1987), the Protovinèa problem and its implications for the origin of the Vinèa Culture from the northern area of theKörös -Starèevo complex (MAKKAY, 1990), bone, antler and boar tusk implements (MAKKAY, 1990a), aselection of clay figurines, amongst which a hitherto unique stone figurine (fig. 11, n. 2; MAKKAY, 1993), clayspindle-whorls (MAKKAY, 1997; 2001c), fine incised, polished and channelled decorations (MAKKAY, 2000),Indo-European questions and their relationships with the Körös Culture (MAKKAY, 2001a), textile impressions,the earliest known documents of the European textile industry in the Early Neolithic (MAKKAY, 2001c), andfinally complete vessels with a secondarily perforated base (MAKKAY, 2001b). E. Starnini published the finalreport on the stone implements (STARNINI, 1993; 1994; 2000; 2002; STARNINI and SZAKMÁNY, 1998).

In particular, my study of the pottery fragments with textile impressions showed that a thorough and carefulexamination of all the potsherds is extremely important, if not indispensable. The total number of different textileimpressions on the Körös potsherds found at four sites in the Hungarian part of the Körös Valley is higher than 40(MAKKAY, 2001c with further details)20. This number is surprisingly high if compared with the virtual absence of anyEarly Neolithic textile impression in Southeast Europe and the Balkans, except for a few cases (SIMOSKA and SANEV,

1975: Pl. III.5). This observation needs a short explanation. The following possibilities are improbable or impossible:

14 –

15. With the exception of the animal bones, because S. Bökönyi selected most of the faunal remains from these sites when preparing his publication and he onlykept the so-called “important part” of them. Also on his order, part of the pottery fragments from the refuse pits of Endrõd 3/119 were reburied in the excavatedfeatures of a nearby Tiszapolgár Culture settlement (site Endrõd 3/130: kind personal information of I. Zalai-Gaál, AI). A large part of the pottery excavated fromthe site was sent back by him to the Szarvas Museum before restoration, and it is now in the museum stores. See our list of these finds in Appendix VII.16. As far as I know, the largest amount of potsherds (34,000 fragments) was discovered in an enormously rich refuse pit at Röszke-Lúdvár during the 1965excavation. Unfortunately these finds are still unpublished (TROGMAYER, 1966).17. See MRT8, under the numbers of the individual sites, with further references to short articles of the Hungarian serial Régészeti Füzetek (scil.Archaeological Fascicles, in effect yearly reports on excavations), published by the Hungarian National Museum, recently by the Cultural HeritageProtection Office with a new title Régészeti Kutatások Magyarországon.18. I am very grateful to Mrs. Ibolya Nepper of the Déri Museum staff, Debrecen, for her information about her excavations at Furta-Csátó.19. The second volume will regard the pottery assemblages (MAKKAY and STARNINI, forthcoming 2). The figurines and other small finds will be thesubject of a third volume (MAKKAY and STARNINI, forthcoming 3).20. CHAPMAN (2003: 99, 100 and 102) was apparently unaware of MAKKAY (1999a; 2000a; 2001c), concerning the textile impressions of the KörösCulture, the oldest Neolithic evidence of textile industry in Europe.

a. That the manufacture and use of textiles (and other woven fabrics: i.e. mats) were known only at the KörösCulture sites of the Körös Valley, during the Early Neolithic of Southeast Europe and the Balkans;

b. That during the manufacture of pottery only the Körös people used textiles for finishing vessels, as forexample, to cover freshly made vessels and dry them;

c. That the chemical processes resulting in textile impressions on the carbonate-impregnated surface of vesselswere active only in the Körös Valley during the lifetime of the Körös Culture.Therefore I can suggest that during the excavation of hundreds of Early Neolithic sites with millions

of potsherds, the Hungarian and Southeast European archaeologists were not aware of the fact thathundreds or thousands of sherds bear textile impressions hidden below the calcium carbonateincrustations covering the inner and outer vessel surfaces. The only conclusion is that some prehistoriansin Hungary, and also abroad, did not accurately analyse their pottery assemblages, either before washingor during conservation and preparation for publication (MAKKAY, 2001c: fig. 107, 3 and 4)21.

The present volume includes the accounts of the sondages and their stratigraphic details, the description ofthe structural remains, among which are ovens and fireplaces, and also the graves with profiles, plans,photographs and drawings. The second volume will contain the detailed description of the pottery assemblages,based on a study made in 1999-2003, thanks to the excellent drawings by E. Starnini. The site drawings havebeen made by the author and the draftsmen of the AI in the field and prepared for their final publication by E.Starnini. The site photographs were taken by J. Makkay and occasionally by T. Kádas, those of the finds by T.Kádas and L. Sugár. A report on the skeletal remains from the burials was compiled by I. Pap (and partly Zs.Zoffmann: Appendix III). The final report on the animal bones has already been published by S. BÖKÖNYI

(1992a). A catalogue and interpretation of the presently known Körös burials is provided in Appendix II. As mentioned above, all the excavated material, with the exception of a few inventoried vessels and

small finds, is now in the stores of the Szarvas Museum, where three showcases contain a display of Körösmaterial, with the exception of the animal bones, which are stored in an unknown place22. A few sampleswithout a precise stratigraphic context were radiocarbon dated (WHITTLE et al., 2002: 115)23. Thepermission to study the material published in these volumes should be requested from the author.

All the deposit was excavated in spits. Significant artefacts (complete or almost complete vessels, densescatters of potsherds probably belonging to the same vessel), structures and features (fireplaces, ovens,rubbish layers above house floors, sacrificial pits and their internal deposits, pits, banks, trenches) and anydisturbance of the layer were recorded with a specific unit number. If a spit of 20 or 30 cm was too thick, it wasfurther subdivided into thinner cuts. Each spit was labelled with a number, which corresponds to a given depthwithin the trench. In most cases each unit, single pot and special find was mapped with three coordinates. Partof the material, among which are mapped potsherds and complete vessels, special finds (painted andred-slipped fragments, imported ALP potsherds [figs. 141 and 142], figurines, altars, other small finds,complete net-weights, sherds with textile impressions, if already detected, spindle whorls, bone and stoneimplements, polished and ground stones, etc.) was separated from the bulk pottery and their stratigraphiclabels were marked with black ink. These finds, together with other selected, specific fragments are at presentin the AI, until the completion of the final report. Most of them will be illustrated in volumes 2 and 3 withdrawings and/or photographs. All these potsherds and other specimens have a box reference number24 writtenon their inner surface in black ink, which relates to the serial box numbers according to their associatedassemblage deposited in the Szarvas Museum. For instance, the finds from Szarvas 8/23 are marked with A,and these A-boxes are numbered from 1 to 114. In this system, boxes A90a+b contain finds (mainly potsherds)from Trench VI/1975, arbitrary layer 125-175 cm (two boxes). Separated pieces of this assemblage, which arenow temporarily kept in Budapest, were also marked and labelled with the reference numbers A90a or A90b.

In late autumn 1993, on the instructions of S. Bökönyi, a few weeks before his retirement at the end of thesame year, an important part of the Endrõd 119 material, in course of restoration, was dispatched to the Szarvas Museum. This material has been stored in the museum basement in some 100 large plastic bags. The transportwas made in a hurry, without the presence and cooperation of the author of this volume. These unfavourable

– 15

21. The relevant sites are Endrõd 3/35, Endrõd 3/39, Endrõd 3/119 and Szarvas 8/23. One piece of Endrõd 3/35 has already been published by MAKKAY (1999a: fig. 24).22. Most of the animal bones were discarded by S. Bökönyi after their study and description.23. The data by WHITTLE et al. (2002: 115) cannot be correlated, in some cases, with the stratigraphy published by MAKKAY (1992). For example, sample OxA-9583 comes from “east ash pit”, which does not exist in our excavation records. This pit might be referred to a feature recorded by S. Bökönyi in his excavation field notes(now lost?). Sample OxA-9589 comes from a pit in square 35 (WHITTLE et al., 2002: 83) which, in turn, can be Pit 13 but also sacrificial Pit A4.24. All the potsherds are now stored in labelled, hard cardboard boxes.

circumstances, together with the humid conditions of the Szarvas Museum basement, resulted in a significantdamage of the finds (mixing together units from different features, loss of labels), indecipherable labelling onthe outer surface of the large plastic bags and on their labels, etc. On a one-day trip made on April 16th, 2003 we tried to make a quick evaluation of these finds, and the results were recorded in a list published in AppendixVII25. Also on S. Bökönyi’s order, a part of the pottery fragments from the refuse pits of Endrõd 3/119 werereburied in the excavated features of a nearby Tiszapolgár Culture settlement under excavation (site Endrõd3/130) (ZALAI-GAÁL, pers. comm. 2003). It is unfortunate that most of these ceramics were not studied whenpreparing volume 2, and they will not be published there. However, the reconstructed vessels and small finds,among which are stones, bone implements, textile impressions, etc. were separated from this material wellbefore dispatching (as mentioned above, already during the excavations), and they will be discussed in theforthcoming two volumes (MAKKAY and STARNINI, forthcoming 2; forthcoming 3).

During their study, the potsherds were subdivided according to their characteristics (fine, medium and coarseware), their position in the vessel (i.e. rim, wall and bottom fragments), their decoration (in the case of wallfragments: pinched, barbotine, incised and plastic patterns), technology and shape (in the case of base fragments),etc. Complete or reconstructed vessels were numbered from 1 onwards. The details of their shape, dimension,capacity, decoration, finish etc. were recorded on independent sheets. Most of the vessels are now in the stores ofthe Szarvas Museum. For more details, see the introduction of volume 2 (MAKKAY and STARNINI, forthcoming 2).

A detailed description of the geographic location of the sites can be found in the Szarvas Topographyvolume (MRT8, 1989).

Besides the yearly planned financial support from the independent Field Survey budget of the AI, furthergrants were never received from the AI or from any other authority26. Funding in support of post-excavation andpost-restoration studies has never been provided either by the AI, or any other Office, Trust or Foundation (withthe exception of the first series of photographs and of course the restoration and preservation programmes).Additional costs of photographs and drawings, computer programs and printing, xerox copies, printing andtranslucent paper, Chinese ink for numbering the boxes, and other small things as for example a pair of scales forweighing the sherds and seeds for measuring the capacity of the vessels, were bought and paid by the author andDr. E. Starnini. My AI colleague, Dr. A. Vaday, always gave help in computer matters when needed.

The personal responsibility for the publication of the results of my excavations has been a considerableburden over two decades. It was in this context that I invited my close friend Dr. E. Starnini (Genoa University, Italy) to join me in the preparation of the final report of the pottery assemblages (MAKKAY and STARNINI,forthcoming 2) and the small finds (MAKKAY and STARNINI, forthcoming 3). I owe special thanks to her forher technical assistance in completing this manuscript: without her help, I could have never prepared theillustrations of this first volume. Her Hungarian studies have been supported and sponsored by the Ministry ofEducation, Budapest (granted as MAE-MÖB scholarship). To my immense pleasure, Prof. Dr. P. Biagi (Ca’Foscari University, Venice, Italy) agreed to publish these bulky volumes in the series of the Quaderni dellaSocieta per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, a noble gesture offered by him andby the Society which can be considered a further proof of traditional friendship between Italy and my country.

I express my best thanks to Dr. J. Chapman for reading the original manuscript. The readers must be aware of the fact that they have a whole life work in their hands, beginning with a seminary

paper on the Körös Culture in the autumn of 1953 to the completing of the manuscript of this volume five decadeslater, at the end of 2004. Papers dealing with the Körös material and its associates in the neighbouring countries,mainly hypothesise that the Early Neolithic Körös-Starèevo pottery embodies a long chronological sequenceconsisting of 6, 8 or even 14 shorter phases (MAKKAY, 1992: 36, and note 1), and also internal evidence fordetecting its origins and faraway connections. Its absolute and relative chronology seems to be solved by listing a long series of often-contradictory radiocarbon dates. At the same time, amongst the mass of such radiocarbonhypotheses and suggested solutions, the finds and results of dozens of excavations are waiting for publication.This volume would provide the reader with material details and practical suggestions rather than theories.

My excavation programme began with an initial season at Szarvas 8/23 in autumn 197427.

16 –

25. A copy of the full version of the record was sent to the AI and also the archives of the Békéscsaba and Szarvas Museums. 26. With the only exception of Endrõd 3/39, i.e. the rescue excavations of 1976-1978, when we enjoyed the financial support of the Central Office of

the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (the 1978 season) and also of the Békés County Museums (the 1977 season). The 1975 sounding atSzarvas 8/23 was sponsored by the same museum.

27. Site numbers like Szarvas 8/23 or Endrõd 3/39 refer to the code-list of the Szarvas Topography volume (MRT8, 1989) where the serial number of

Endrõd is 3 and Szarvas is 8.

– 17

Fig. 1 - Location of the Körös sites mentioned in the text. 1: Szarvas, site 8/23. 2: Békésszentandrás-Furugy, site 1/28 and Szarvas, site 8/8. 3: Szarvas, site 8/56. 4:Endrõd, sites 3/6 and 3/158. 5: Gyoma, site 4/51. 6: Endrõd, site 3/39. 7: Endrõd, site 3/119. 8: Endrõd, sites 3/35, 3/36 and 3/82. 9: Dévaványa. 10: Furta-Csátó.11: Méhtelek-Nádas. 12: Tiszacsege-Homokbánya. 13: Battonya-Basarága. 14: Szentes. 15: Maroslele-Pana. 16: Gyálarét. 17: Deszk. 18: Endrõd, site 3/45.

18 –

2. SZARVAS, SITE 8/23 (figs. 2-34)

2.1. SITE DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY OF THE RESEARCH

Szarvas 8/23 lies ca 2 km east of the southern suburb of Szarvas (fig. 1, 1), at the intersection of three roads: theNW-SE highway from Szarvas (Budapest) to Békéscsaba, the SW-NE road from Szarvas to Endrõd28, and the localW-E road from Szarvas to Örménykút, branching off from the former in the centre of the site (fig. 3). The dimensionsof the Egyházföld settlement were once approximately 500x300 m. The original, large settlement has been affected by different, successive and destructive building and other activities29. The area, which had remained intact until the timeof the topographic survey, is only a small SE portion of the original site. In 1974, most of the settlement (a few metressouth of my 1974 Trenches I-II: see the general map in fig. 2 and also fig. 3) was some 1.5-2 m higher than thesurrounding plain30. The site extends along and west of the western levee of an old, Pleistocene bed (once a hugemeander) of the Pre-Körös ’Great Eastern River’ (i.e. the antecedent of both the Maros and Triple Körös Rivers,nowadays called Kondoros River). This bed is filled with very young deposits. During the Early Holocene, the head of this Pleistocene bed was cut by a new meander of the Körös, currently called Cigány-ér.31 All the above-mentionedsmall sites (WHITTLE et al., 2002: 74) lie along the southern bank of the Cigány-ér, while the northern bank remainedunsettled in prehistory. The unusual geographic setting of site 23, misunderstood by the authors of the 2002 paper32,has given me the opportunity to date its early occupation phases to the beginning of EN Körös sequence33.

The north-eastern greater part of the site, north of the Szarvas-Endrõd road, along the southern bank ofthe Cigány-ér, had already been destroyed by the clay borrow pits for local brickwork (the Hitelbank -Credit Bank - brickwork), which were active from the 1860-1870s to roughly 1965. Trees planted in the1970s, now cleared, covered the western part of this area.

The westernmost part of the site, west of the Szarvas-Békéscsaba highway, had been used as anagricultural plot until the building of a poultry slaughterhouse in 1987-1988 (fig. 3, some 100-150 m west ofthe Örménykút road). No archaeological activity was possible before and during the very rapid growth of thelarge factory halls, and only some sporadic Körös fragments were collected34. The area between theBékéscsaba and Örménykút roads was (is) the place where the central operative buildings and small factoriesof the Dózsa Agricultural Cooperation, or Kolkhoz, were built from the early 1950s onwards. During ourfieldwork, agricultural drying machines were built and placed south of the Endrõd road (fig. 3: west of theÖrménykút road) and many features of the Körös Culture, and also graves of the Sarmatian Period cemetery,were destroyed. Stray finds of both periods went into the collections of the Szarvas Museum35.

To sum up, as a result of the industrial activities and agricultural investment of the 19th and 20th centuries, mostof the site was destroyed. At present only its south-eastern part, in the corner between the Örménykút and Endrõdroads, is intact for further archaeological investigations. As mentioned above, the major, northern part of the levee,on the western bank of the Kondoros River, was heavily affected by brick clay borrow pits. This might be animportant point because often the levee parts of the Körös settlements (near the head of the meander) yielded therichest deposits. Here the site did not show a linear structure (i.e. one row of houses along the river bank), but it wasin two or more rows on the levee and also on the slightly low-lying parts, west of the levee36. The good, light, loosesoils of these levees were suitable for prehistoric agriculture and were excellent areas for building houses on small

28. The distribution map of the Szarvas sites (MRT8, 1989: unnumbered map between pages 376 and 377) wrongly represents the intersections of these three roads.29. WHITTLE et al. (2002: 74) describe the site, lying on a ridge beside the great meander of an old branch of the River Körös, “as one of the string of Körösoccupations here”. In effect the other sites of this “string” are, if compared to site 23, only localities, which yielded poor Körös pottery assemblages. Thiscircumstance was emphasized under the particular site numbers of the Topography 30. This low elevation, where the excavations of Soma Sipos were probably undertaken in 1880, was obliterated in 1988 by digging the wheat Silos 1-5 (see their description below).31. The Cigány-ér was finally abandoned during the canalisation of the rivers in the second half of the XIX century and slowly became a muddy area and,unfortunately, a refuse dump of the town. I suppose that this old Holocene meander, called Cigány-ér, was closed from the main course of the Triple Körösmuch earlier, in the XI-XIII centuries AD at least. 32. I should make a reference to the comment of WHITTLE et al. (2002: 74). The writers did not study the work by JANKOVICH et al. (1989: i.e. MRT8,1989) they referred. They gave a thoroughly account of the different geographical position of site 23 at p. 392. See also p. 394, where I write that site 23occupied the area on the bank of the Kondoros River bed and not of the Cigány-ér. 33. WHITTLE et al. (2002) are sceptical about such an early dating of some parts of the site and its white-on-brown/red painted fragments (p. 86) referring toTHISSEN (2000) who is apparently dubious of the early date of white painting and suggests that few Körös sites date before 5700-5600 Cal BC. Apart from therecent Oxford radiocarbon dates (WHITTLE et al., 2002: 115, calibrated at 2ó) that contradict this suggestion since two of them are older than 5800 Cal BC.34. During our field survey no Körös occupation was detected here, because this area was covered by a thick alfalfa plantation. This is why MRT8 (1989:the Szarvas map before p. 377) only represents the central and eastern distribution of the site.35. The description of these works can be found in my excavation records compiled during the second season, in 1975, p. 1. Most probably, at least fiveKörös Culture refuse pits were obliterated.36. A similar situation can also be noticed at Endrõd 3/39, where between the eastern and western row of the houses and their adjoining pits there was adeep depression in the central part of the site. See below in the description of the site and fig. 60.

– 19

elevations, sheltered from eventual floods. Thewaterlogged clay of the low swamps and the dry fieldsof the eroded surfaces of the neighbouring, alluvial fan,in the area east of the Kondoros bed and south of thesite, were places for grazing animals, and gatheringreeds and withies.

This very favourable geographic location of site 23had already been pointed out by one of the greatesthuman geographers of Hungary, Tibor Mendöl(1905-1966) who was born in a small village in thevicinity of Szarvas37. In his 1928 dissertation, he wrotethat site 23 lies at the point where, during the EarlyHolocene, the then new bed of the River Körös (i.e. theCigány-ér) cut a Pleistocene meander (i.e. thePleistocene meander of the Kondoros River. In effectsite 23 is located on the left bank of this meander, at thehead of the western branch). The head of this Pleistocene meander, however, remained opened, and during highwaters (spring thaw, heavy rains and June floodings) thewater flowed into this old bed, at least in its head partsstill unfilled. At the same time, the elevated banks of thebed were ideal for Neolithic habitation (MENDÖL, 1928:19 and 33)38. The site lies exactly at the boundarybetween the region of the partly desiccated riverbranches, dating to the pre-Holocene and EarlyHolocene periods, and the more recent, huge alluvial fanof the Great Eastern River, the Pleistocene ancestor ofboth the Maros and the Triple Körös. The area of themore southern alluvial fan was ideal for hunting.

I was very disappointed by the extent of the area ofthis still intact site destroyed by the construction ofhuge, underground wheat storage pits (silos) in 1988(fig. 2, silo-Trenches 1-5)39. The rapid operations wereagainst the cultural heritage laws in force and theresponsible cultural authorities were not informed ofthe works to be made. This happened during the lastyear of the communist regime.

Local intellectuals had already initiated the firstexplorations at the site in the early Seventies of the XIX

century. According to a local journal, Soma Sipos, a Szarvas journalist and publisher, began to collect archaeologicalfinds at least as early as 1871. He reported: “heavy rains washed out a great number of ancient pottery sherds fromwalls of clay borrow pits beyond the [Halesz] farmstead on the periphery of Szarvas. After some examination, a partof them turned out to have been fragmented vessels from the Stone Age, 3000-4000 years old”40.

A few years later, Soma Sipos returned to the site to organise a small exhibition for (and later also in the wake of) the 1876 Budapest VIII Congress of Prehistory and Protohistory and “he found an enormous number of claypottery fragments on the surface of the site, which extends along the bank of the Cigány-ér [i.e. at the head of theKondoros-meander], and human and animal bones and flint and obsidian stone implements can also be collected from a depth of a few centimetres”41. In 1877 he also found traces of Sarmatian Period graves in the area of the

Fig. 2 - Szarvas, site 8/23. General map of the excavations carried out between1974 and 1988. Nos. I-IX are Trenches of the 1974-1979 excavations. Arabicnumbers 1-5 refer to 1988 silo-trenches and their features. G = graves. * marksthe place of discovery of the native copper in 1982 (see CHAPMAN andTYLECOTE, 1983).

37. MAKKAY in MRT8 (1989: 396) wrongly wrote that his birthplace was Szarvas, whilst he was born in the village of Nagyszénás, in the closeneighbourhood of Szarvas.38. After the summary by MAKKAY in MRT8 (1989: English translation in MAKKAY, 2000a: 27).39. For the rescued material see Box Reference Numbers A94-99 and also 102-114. For more details see below.40. The weekly Békés, 3: 100, Dec. 14, 1871: 3. See MAKKAY in MRT8 (1989: 19, note 29; 450, note 1).41. MAKKAY in MRT8 (1989: 393). These find places can be very probably partly identified with sites 8/21 (Strázsahalom) and 8/121 (Halesz). SeeMRT8 (1989: 391 and 450).

20 –

yellow clay, borrow pits of thebrickwork (i.e. in thenorth-eastern part of site 23)and promised to conductexcavations. The surfacecollection continued during1876 in the area between theHalesz farmstead and thebrickworks. The short reportby Sipos mentions potsherdswith pinched decoration(Körös finds) and decoratedwith straight and serpentine-like winding (incised) lines (ALP)42. Here began an enigmatic storyof the Hungarian prehistoryconcerning the chronologicalrelationships between the Körös and the ALP Cultures, whichwas finally solved by theresearches of F. Tompa and J.Banner half a century later43.

The excavations werecarried out in 1880 on a lowelevation near the road toMezõberény (i.e. the

Szarvas-Endrõd road) where “a great number of prehistoric remains were discovered, among them potteryfragments and human bones in a great quantity, together with clay net-weights” (MAKKAY in MRT8, 1989:393). Soma Sipos mentions a number of net-weights, which he refers to the Körös Culture, because theproduction and use of heavy clay weights of different shape is a specific characteristic of this culture(MAKKAY and STARNINI, forthcoming 2). The low elevation close to the road is most probably part of thesurviving SE quarter of the site, in the area of the 1988 storage pits. Trenches I-II of my 1974-1975 excavations were opened in the northern part of (probably) the same elevation, which was later covered by the storage pits(figs. 2-3). Unfortunately the finds of the 1880 excavation were dispersed without leaving any trace.

If Soma Sipos had published his results in Archaeologiai Értesítõ44, they would be the first written reporton the Körös-Starèevo Culture. In her pioneering volume published in 1944, Ida KUTZIÁN (1944: 7-9) wrotethat a “systematic collection of finds of the Körös culture began in co. Békés”. She mentions sites as, forinstance, Szarvas 8/1 (the Kovácshalom), 8/21 (Strázsahalom) and 8/121 (Halesz), which belong to the LateNeolithic Szakálhát-Tisza Culture with sporadic Körös assemblages. The research at sites contemporary withthe Körös Culture, called Starèevo and Criº45, began decades later in Serbia and Transylvania, with the onlyexception of sites discovered and described in the last quarter of the 19th century when the Vojvodina andTransylvania were part of the Hungarian Kingdom46.

Unfortunately these earliest discoveries made by Soma Sipos went into oblivion because the archaeologicalactivity did not continue after the 1876 Congress generation. In 1910, the local archaeologist Endre Krecsmárik47

announced the discovery of an archaeological site in the clay borrow pits of the Hitelbank Brickworks, with rich

Fig. 3 - Szarvas, site 8/23. Plan of the excavations (1974-1979 seasons).

42. The Editorial in the Archaeologiai Értesítõ, 1877, 11: 65 and 66, with reference to the original article of Soma Sipos published in Szarvasi Ujság (TheSzarvas Chronicle), number 1, January 1877. Fragments of ALP became the eponymous types of the Szarvas-Érpart (i.e. Cigány-ér part) variant a fewdecades later. As a matter of fact, surface finds of ALP and Szakálhát types were also collected in the abandoned clay borrow pits of the northeastern part of site in 1974-1976 and also in the territory of the storage pits in 1988 (fig. 143, 9 and 10). According to the above-mentioned paper by Sipos, the central partof the site with prehistoric remains lay close to the Halesz farmstead, and also the entire Cigány-ér Valley belonged to it.43. For comments see MAKKAY in MRT8 (1989: 383) with further references to the works of J. Banner and F. Tompa.44. The only central forum of the Hungarian archaeology in the XIX century, following its establishment in 1869.45. When Vlassa published his paper on the Körös-Criº of Transylvania in 1966, not one single site was known from the Transylvanian part of the Körös-CriºValleys. The then known 18 Körös sites were identified from more central and eastern areas of Transylvania. See MAKKAY (1982: 19 and 20 and note 19).46. KUTZIÁN (1944: 22-26) with further references to Szerbkeresztur, Törökkanizsa, Gombos-Bogojevo, Monostorszeg-Opoljenik, Óbessenyõ-Bukovapuszta at present in Romania and Serbia.47. His activity will be discussed in the chapter on site Szarvas 8/8, i.e. the Szappanos halom.

– 21

refuse pits most probably attributable to the Körös Culture. Two years later, during the building of theSzarvas-Endrõd local road, he saw and studied large rubbish pits sometimes 15 m long (MAKKAY in MRT8,1989: 393). The area of my excavations, and also of the five storage pits, lay a few metres south of the same road.Krecsmarik planned to excavate the site in 1917, but the war period was not ripe for scientific studies. Since the1920s, further isolated excavations were carried out in the area, in settlements and cemeteries of much laterperiods. After the death of Krecsmarik, in 1930, very little, or nothing, happened to the prehistoric sites of one ofthe richest archaeological regions of the Carpathian basin. Apart from minor rescue excavations, the researchwas resumed only in 1974, in the framework of the Hungarian Topography.

2.2. THE 1974-1979 SOUNDINGS

2.2.1. The first season: October 28th-November 3rd, 1974

As mentioned above, the first season of my excavations programme began in the autumn of 1974 atSzarvas 8/2348. Its scope was to discover any possible stratigraphic evidence of the chronological relationships between the Körös and ALP Cultures. Typical ALP sherds had been found by Krecsmárik in 1912 in the clayborrow pits and along the same road (MAKKAY in MRT8, 1989: 393). It was hoped that this excavation wouldelucidate the question of the interrelationships between the two cultures, debated in the 1970s (TROGMAYER,

1968a; 1971). As far as I know this was the first excavation at a major Körös site after O. TROGMAYER’s(1964; 1966; 1966a; 1968b) researches in the mid 1960s49.

During the first 1974 season, two trenches were opened down to the virgin soil, i.e. to a depth of 250 cm (thedeepest part of Pit 1). Trench I/1974 was 20 m long and 5 m wide. An extension to its western corner was opened(called Trench II) without baulks, to form an open area (Trenches I-II). Parts of the pit to the south and westremained unexcavated (fig. 4). The excavation of storage Pit 2/2 (1988) revealed these unexcavated parts, asdemonstrated by refitting fragments of one large Körös container from the different areas (fig. 5). Thesefragments belong to the wide, slightly concave base of a vessel with an impressed, geometric decoration on itsinner surface. The fragments were found near and inside the western wall of Trench II/1974. Therefore Pit 2/2represented the western part of Pit 1/1974 (fig. 2, in the north-eastern part of storage Pit 2).

In 1974, first the disturbed, ploughed soil was removed over an area of 30x6 m, to a depth of ca 40 cm. Theexposed surface was later cleaned to remove a 10 cm thick muddy layer (the work was started under a heavy autumnrain) to reveal discolourations indicating, first of all, postholes and the contours of refuse pits. Later a trench 20x5 mwas opened in its centre, in a NW-SE direction. Removing the arbitrary layer between 50 and 70 cm, the yellow virginsoil made its appearance in the eastern part of the trench, at a depth of 70 cm, without any trace of features, with theexception of the outlines of three postholes in the centre of the trench, lying in a N-S direction, respectively 30, 38 and50 cm deep into the virgin subsoil (fig. 4, section A-A). Their fill contained much ash. These structures belong to theKörös Culture, although their function (a surface Körös house?) remained uncertain. Inside one of them, there were3 Körös fragments. At the western end of the trench, thick scatters of Körös pottery were found between 50 and 70cm and, after cleaning, at 70 cm, the uncertain outlines (discolouration) of a large Körös refuse pit (Pit 1 in Trenches I-II) were observed. After repeated cleanings, to define the discolouration, it was possible to notice the emergingpatterns of the refuse pit, since the contrast between its ashy, dark colour and the virgin soil was defined.

The work continued only in this part of the trench, i.e. in Pit 1 with an arbitrary layer between 70 and 90 cm of depth. A thick concentration of finds made its appearance in the NW corner (i.e. above the deepest part ofthe pit in this area), where the sherds were much scarcer in the NE part of Pit 1. Here the edge of the pit wasclearly visible at a depth of 90 cm. A similar fill was found in the arbitrary layers 90-110 and 110-130 cm, withthin levels of ash and also Unio freshwater shells. Close to the northern edge of Pit 1, along the trench wall, wediscovered another small pit (Pit 2) most of which lay north, outside Trench I-II. Its fill contained a number ofcoarse net-weights. It was impossible to complete its excavation. During the excavation of the storage pit,carried out in 1988, a similar concentration of elongated, flat clay weights was found in the central part ofsilo-Trench 1 (fig. 2, no. 2 in silo-Trench 1, and fig. 13, 1 and 2).

48. See footnote 27.49. Unfortunately his 1968 dissertation (TROGMAYER, 1968c) concerning his Körös excavations at Maroslele-Pana, Szeged-Gyálarét, Deszk-Olajkút andRöszke-Lúdvár has remained unpublished. I was so fortunate to take part in these excavations, and as a result, I started my Körös excavations not without any basic experience. The works at Méhtelek were carried out before 1974.

22 –

At a depth of some 130 cm, and also between 130 and 150 cm, the fill of Pit 1 yielded only a few potsherds,near Pit 2. The daybook reports a number of thin clayey and blackish layers one above the other. They laterturned out to be thin layers of the backfill in the pit of Grave 2, whose contours were recorded at a depth of150-155 cm. It was cut into the virgin soil at 40-50 cm (fig. 4, plan). Grave 2 belonged to the Sarmatian cemeteryof site 23 (fig. 12, 2). The arbitrary layer between 110 and 130 cm yielded a great number of animal bones.

Szarvas 8/23, Grave 1: a skeleton of a 17-18 years female (ZOFFMANN, 1986: 40 and 41)50 was found on itsleft side, in a crouched position, with the arms brought up against the chest, at a depth of 135-150 cm, between the edge and the deeper part of Pit 1 (fig. 4, plan and 6, 1). There were no traces of a burial pit above the skeleton. Itsorientation was approximately N-S. The length of the skeleton, measured in situ, was 135 cm. The base of theskull was found at a depth of 150 cm, i.e. 10 cm beneath the legs. The body was at the top of the 40 cm thick fill,above the virgin clay soil, interred with the left knee forming an angle of more than 90°, while the right leg wasnot bent so strongly. Above and besides the skeleton there were potsherds, partly belonging to the same largecontainer, in a good state of preservation. It was impossible to define if the body had been intentionally coveredwith large vessel fragments at the time of its deposition. No grave goods were found. Only a small part of thelower jaw with traces of an old breakage lay in its original position. The larger, matching part of the jaw was laterfound in the arbitrary layer 190-210 cm, in the extension of Trench I, i.e. Trench II.

Fig. 4 - Szarvas, site 8/23. Plan and section A-B of Pit 1 in Trenches I-II/1974.

50. The skull and the post-cranial bones show gracility. The deceased was of a short stature. The taxonomic identification, however, was not possible. Theparietal bones of the skull show traces of a strong hit but she survived it.

– 23

Fig. 5 - Szarvas, site 8/23. Fragments of a large bowl with impressed linear decoration in its inner surface. 1: Fragments from Trenches I-II/1974, Pit 1(P.100.346, Inv. nos. 78.42.20, 78.42.22, 78.42.25). 2: silo Pit 2/2, 1988 (drawings by E. Starnini).

24 –

During the excavation of Pit 1 fill, arbitrary layer 130-150, burnt traces of two fireplaces were discovered 50and 100 cm respectively from the skull of Grave 1, in a NW direction. The first fireplace was found at a depth of135 cm. It was circular, 30 cm in diameter and 5-6 cm thick. It was a thin, plastered layer with a smoothedsurface, which most probably served as a fireplace. The other wider fireplace with a similar structure (diameters30 and 50 cm), was found at the same depth, further to the NW. They both were probably parts of the same larger

Fig. 6 - Szarvas, site 8/23. 1: Grave 1/1974 (P.79.733 and D.29.593). 2: Grave 2/1988 (see also fig. 13, 4). 3: Grave 4/1975 (D.29.588).

– 25

structure covered with a thin level of white ash. Heavy firing on this place corresponded with a great quantity ofgrey ash found in the central parts of the fill, in the spits around and beneath them. On the other hand, thepresence of much ash was also characteristic of the arbitrary layer beneath spit 90-100 cm (figs. 4 and 12, 2). This observation was of basic importance for the further subdivision of the pottery and other material recovered fromtwo different spits at 50-110 and 110-220 cm respectively (see the box reference numbers). Sporadic materialwas collected below 220 cm. Fragments of painted pottery were found above and also below 110 cm, and bothblack-on-red and white-on-light red/brown fragments were recovered from both spits (MAKKAY, 1996: 47-49,Pls. 9, 1, 8, 12, 15 [white-on-red or brown]; 10, 27 and 13, 1, 6 [black-on-red]).

This evidence is opposite to the traditional, although stratigraphically never demonstrated, relative chronologyof the black-on-red painted ware of the Körös-Starèevo Culture in comparatively later phases of the sequence.

2.2.1.1. A short discussion of the stratigraphic and chronological position of the white-on-brown orwhite-on-red painted sherds

The presence of white-painted sherds on a red or light brown slip in this pit, associated with characteristicblack-on-red painted fragments (MAKKAY, 1996: 47-49, figs. 14 and 15 and Pl. 12 and 13), has requested somecomments since their discovery in 1974. First N. KALICZ (1980: 101) gave his opinion, when he wrote that thestratigraphic context of these sherds was uncertain51. Kalicz obtained his information from the manuscript of my 1978candidate’s dissertation with only a short mention of these painted fragments (MAKKAY 1982b), without a singleword about their stratigraphic position. My short remark, not mentioning the stratigraphic distribution of these finds, is as follows (MAKKAY, 1982b: 37 and 39): “there are sites where different types of painting were found together inclosed contexts and associated also with several types of barbotine decoration, and the white painted ware occurstogether with all types of barbotine pottery in great number”. And further: “white painted fragments found on someKörös sites of the Alföld can be considered imports proving that a group of the Alföld Körös sites canchronologically be paralleled with early phases of Donja Branjevina, i.e. the earliest Körös-Starèevo phase”.

Kalicz’s remarks were unfounded as it was the comment by EHRICH and BANKOFF (1992: 378 and 379).They distinguished the Karanovo I horizon from the Karanovo II and Starèevo related cultures, dating theselatter to the 2nd and 3rd phases of the southeastern European Early Neolithic, following the controversial52

earliest Neolithic Phase (Neolithic I) of Thessaly (called also Frühkeramikum, Early Pottery or simply’developed ’Monochrome pottery53) (COLEMAN, 1992: 254). The correlations suggested by EHRICH andBANKOFF (1992: 378) are shown in the following table 1:

Thessaly Northeastern Balkans Carpathian Basin

EN-I: Frühkeramikum ?Karanovo I?

EN-II: Proto-Sesklo G. Baciului-Anzabegovo-Karanovo I Donja Branjevina54

EN-III-MN: Pre-Sesklo Middle Neolithic Karanovo II-III-Starèevo-Körös-Criº

Table 1 - Cultural correlations between Thessaly, the NE Balkans and the Carpathian Basin according to EHRICH and BANKOFF (1992).

To sum up, the two authors suggested that the Carpathian Neolithic sequence would start from the very latephase of the EN-II, and the earliest types of the Körös Culture belong to the very end of this long sequence,representing the beginning of the Middle Neolithic:

“Generally the levels of this period [i.e. the Gura Baciului-Anzabegovo-Karanovo I development of EN-II55]occur independently. Only at Donja Branjevina does the excavator claim that the pottery appeared in associationwith Starèevo material, particularly the so-called altars. Although some scepticism has been voiced as to themanner of excavation, it also seems quite possible that this admixture [my emphasis] may have resulted from a

51. In the German original it reads “ihre Fundzusammenhänge sind noch unsicher“. 52. Controversial because their sequence of the Early Neolithic pottery types/phases was built on the chronology of MILOJÈIÆ-V. ZUMBUSCH andMILOJÈIÆ (1971) (MAKKAY, 1963; 1965; 1969 and especially 1974).53. Concerning the series of contradictory statements and opinions about the occurrence of early and developed monochrome wares (the typological differencesbetween early and developed monochrome have never been described), see my review (MAKKAY, 1978: 446) of the Anza excavations (GIMBUTAS, 1976). Theextraordinary low number of such finds from Anza Ia (24 small fragments of painted pottery and three atypical bottom parts representing the coarse ware) makes itimpossible to distinguish between Anza Ia and Ib. The famous painted vessel found in the 1960 Yugoslavian excavations attributed by GIMBUTAS (1976: 64) toAnza I is in effect a very characteristic type of the Hacilar II fantastic style, which suggests that Anza I cannot be dated to a very early phase of the Early Neolithicsequence of the Southern Balkans. See also MAKKAY (1974: 153) with further literature, and also point j. below. 54. Donja Branjevina does not lie in the northern part of the Baèka-Bácska as reported by WHITTLE et al. (2002: 87), but in its south-westernmost part.According to the tradition, the Baèka-Bácska is the name of the old Hungarian county Bács-Bodrog, and the northern border of it was (and is) north ofKecskemét. The distance of Donja Branjevina from the Northern Bácska is around 150 km. On the other hand, Körös-Starèevo sites cannot be found inthe Northern Bácska because it lies north of the final distribution line of this culture. 55. I again make my reference to the so-called Ia and Ib phases of Anzabegovo (MAKKAY, 1974: 153). R. W. Ehrich accepted my view concerning thisquestion at that time. See his letter of 16. 6. 1980: “I was very much interested in your review of Marija [Gimbutas]’s Prehistoric Macedonia. I think thatyou were most kind, although your disapproval does shine through”.

26 –

disturbance of the earlier level and a backfill during subsequent Starèevo, or even later, times. The five sherds56

painted in this style from Szarvas 23 (MAKKAY, 1981) may well have a similar history of contamination” (EHRICH

and BANKOFF, 1992: 379. See the slightly different view of WHITTLE et al., 2002: 87, and also SCHUBERT, 1999:33, 76 and 7757). This means that 1) the five white-painted sherds from Szarvas originally belonged to a later phase ofthe site and dropped into the pit fill, i.e. that they date to a post-Körös habitation period; or 2) they originally belongedto a very early Körös period coming into the fill of Pit 1 by contamination. Both these opinions would suggest a poorexperience of these authors in archaeological excavations. These five sherds might derive from contamination, butthey do not. Here follow a few comments about the allegation of disturbances or contaminations:a. Neither Ehrich, nor Bankoff, or anybody else who believes in the chronological discrepancy between the

southern (mainly south of the Danube) and northern (Körös) assemblages, have ever seen or studiedpersonally any of the potsherds in question from the sites of Szarvas, Endrõd and Méhtelek (EHRICH andBANKOFF, 1992: 381). The case of the above-mentioned fragments with textile impressions proves thesuperficiality of the study of the contemporary assemblages in general. A reference can be made to anothersimilar case: the potsherds decorated with linear motifs of stroke burnishing, rarely pattern burnishing and(not incised, but stroked or polished-in) impressions are abundant in the Körös assemblages of the KörösValley as 119 published specimens and others awaiting publication (MAKKAY and STARNINI, forthcoming2) sufficiently demonstrate (MAKKAY, 2000). The fragments of these vessels are almost (or totally)unknown from the published and unpublished assemblages of other Körös Culture sites and also from sites ofthe Starèevo and Karanovo Cultures of more southern regions58. I do not believe that this type of decorationwas known only to (and used by) the potters of the villages of the lower course of the Körös Valley in co.Békés. Nevertheless I cannot prove that this decorative pattern was invented by the Körös potters of theregion between Szarvas and Endrõd (MAKKAY, 2004b: 20-22).

b. One of the hypothetical differences between the Körös and Starèevo aspects that used to be mentionedcounting the virtual or actual uniformity of pottery, is that, at least in Hungary, the Körös people dependedmore on sheep and goats and wild game, whereas the Starèevo ones on cattle (EHRICH and BANKOFF, 1992:380). This suggestion was probably partly based on the identifications of the faunal remains fromLudas-Budzsák near Subotica-Szabadka at the Serbian-Hungarian border. Here the percentages of cattle andsheep bones are very similar (77 [46.11%] and 78 [46.71%] respectively: BÖKÖNYI, 1984: 30). This smallassemblage (167 bones of domesticated and 614 of wild animals) contradicts every statistic and interpretation made on the EN faunal remains excavated in the Middle and Lower Danube area. Before such a view will become established in the academic circles, I mention the opinion of S. Bökönyiexpressed after one of his visits to pre-1990 Yugoslavia. According to him, this difference was based onthe local excavation techniques, i.e. during the excavations it is much easier to notice and collect largecattle bones than the bones of small livestock (sheep and goats)59. As a matter of fact, I do not know anycomplete publication of archaeozoological assemblages from any Early Neolithic excavation carried outin Greece, Bulgaria, former Yugoslavia and Romania, which can be compared to the 23,000 bone remainsof Endrõd 3/11960. Only preliminary reports were published on the faunas from Sofia-Slatina andKaranovo, while the animal bones of the recent excavations at Vinèa and Divostin are mainly LateNeolithic61. Furthermore, the Donja Branjevina final publication (KARMANSKI, 2005: 74-76) reports only

56. The white-on-brown or red-painted sherds from Pit 1 in Trenches I-II/1974 (MAKKAY, 1981: figs. 1, 1 and 2 and 2, 1, 3 and 4). 7 fragments of 7different vessels were found in four different features of the site: Pit 1 in Trenches I-II/1974, Pit in Trench VI/1975, and silo-Pits 1/4 and 3/8 in 1988: see MAKKAY (1996: Pl. 9, 1, 3, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15).57. SCHUBERT (1999) dates the white-painted fragments of Szarvas 8/23 and Endrõd 3/119 (see his Pl. 7, 6, a fragment from Endrõd 119 and not fromSzarvas) into his earliest, Protostarèevo phase (I or II?) at the periphery of the same horizon. Unfortunately, he mixed up the sites, in this case Šarvas (inpresent Croatia) with Szarvas in the Körös Valley (and not in the Balkans as he wrongly remarked; see his p. 33 and Pl. 7, 1-9). The name of both Šarvas andSzarvas goes back to the same Hungarian word meaning ’cervus’. SCHUBERT (1999: Pl. 7, 5, 6, 8 and 9) are painted fragments from Szarvas and Endrõd. Itis sad that colleagues dealing with this topic, mentioning also territorial-geographic divergences resulting in alleged chronological differences, sometimesdo not have any idea of the geography of the territories themselves. An archaeologist ought to have a general knowledge of, and interest in, those areas inwhich he/she is working with their material. 58. According to T. EFE (pers. comm.) these decorated specimens are abundant in his west Anatolian Chalcolithic material.59. His personal comment in 1987 or 1988. The above-mentioned bones from Ludas-Budzsák support the opinion of Bökönyi. This interpretation ofBökönyi significantly differs from the opinion expressed by the same author in 1974 that “The animal keeping of the Körös culture is completely identicalwith that of pre-pottery Neolithic in Thessaly, with the difference that here, in the North, important hunting, fishing and gathering activities were added toanimal keeping” (BÖKÖNYI, 1974: 51-56). As J. CHAPMAN (2003: 90) remarked, by this BÖKÖNYI (1974: 24) meant that high percentages of ovicaprids inthe domestic bone assemblage were shared by Greece and Eastern Hungary but not in the intervening regions. The curiosity of these shared social practicesin Greece and Hungary is that we have a meagre evidence of the pre-pottery Neolithic in Thessaly, if any. For its hypothetical character see PERLES (2001:64-79) with a detailed discussion.60. The statistics from six EN sites show the magnitude of the Endrõd 119 bone assemblage (KALICZ, 1990: 96-98 and Beilage 2).61. For the relevant publications of S. Bökönyi see his full bibliography till 1994 in Archaeologiai Értesítõ, 121 and 122 (1994-1995): 198 and 199, nn.166, 167, 177, 198 and 201. S. Bökönyi also studied the animal bones from the excavations carried out by S. Karmanski (see the following footnote).

– 27

a relatively small number of bones from Trenches I-III/198862. 66.36 % (1,750 specimens) of the identified3,889 (or 3,606) bones belong to four species of domesticated animals (table 2):

Number of dom. bones % of total (3889) % of domesticates (1750)

Bos taurus L. 404 15.32 23.08

Ovis/Capra 1,306 49.52 74.62

Sus domesticus L. 26 0.98 1.40

Canis familiaris L. 14 0.53 0.80

total 1,750 66.35 100.00

Table 2 - Domestic animal species from Donja Branjevina in the Vojvodina (after KARMANSKI, 2005).

If one compares these data with the results from Endrõd 3/119 by S. Bökönyi, the following picture emerges(unfortunately the number of individuals from Donja Branjevina were not provided) (table 3):

Specimens % of total dom. sp. Individuals % of tot. dom. ind.

Bos taurus L. 5,139 24.70 183 18.25

Ovis/Capra 15,357 74.10 788 78.56

Sus scrofa dom. L. 140 0.67 20 1.99

Canis fam. L. 87 0.40 12 1.20

Subtotal dom. 20,723 100.00 1,003 100.00

wild mammals 1,645 137

large wild mammals 1,428 105

other wild animals (birds, fishes) 1,279

total 23,647

Table 3 - Domestic (and wild) animal species from Endrõd 3/119 (after BÖKÖNYI, 1992a, Table 13).

The comparison between the percentages of the domesticated mammals (i.e. 24.70 [23.08%] and 74.10[74.62%]) suggests that any difference between the animal husbandry of the Starèevo Culture (i.e. DonjaBranjevina and the Starèevo Culture territory) and that of the Körös Valley is artificial.It would seem contradictory (although it is not) to state that, independently from the high number of sheep/goatbones (specimens and individuals), both the Körös and Starèevo populations relied more on cattle than sheepand goats. First, the number of bones and individuals of large wild mammals (aurochs, red and roe deer, boar:1428 bones and 105 individuals) should be added to the subtotal number of domesticated mammals.BÖKÖNYI’s (1992a: 235 and 236) results, based on the relationships between numbers and individuals and meatquantities of domesticated and of large wild mammals, show the meat supply condition at Endrõd 3/119 (table 4):

no. of individuals % caprovine unit no. of individuals %

Domestic Cattle 183 18.25 1,281 60.86

Sheep/Goat 788 78.56 788 37.43

Pig 20 1.99 30 1.43

Domestic total 999 98.10 2,099 99.72

Wild Large mammals 105 80.50 roe deer unit 1,061 95.60

Table 4 - Number and percentage of domestic and wild animals from Endrõd 3/119 (after BÖKÖNYI, 1992a, Table 13).

The caloric values of these meat quantities are as follows (table 5):

Individ. Meat /kg % Cal./kg Cal. quantity %

Cattle 183 27,450 64.41 1,500 41,175000 56.91

Sheep/Goat 788 14,184 33.28 2,000 28,368000 39.21

Pig 20 0,840 1.97 3,000 2,520000 3.48

Domestic total 999 42,474 99.66 - 72,063000 99.60

Large wild 105 14,251 96.74* - 25,030000 95.42*

*percentages against small wild animals (i.e. birds, etc.).

Table 5 - Caloric values of the animal meat supply from Endrõd 3/119 (after BÖKÖNYI, 1992a, Table 14).

62. The analysis was made by Svetlana Blažiæ, Beograd (KARMANSKI, 2000: 183 and 184). The paper of S. Bökönyi, mentioned in the bibliography ofKARMANSKI (2000) Hunting-fishing-gathering in the Starèevo-Körös Culture, is still unpublished.

28 –

To conclude, cattle and aurochs63 played a main role in the meat diet of the Körös-Starèevo groups of theCarpathian Basin and presumably also the northern Balkans (Donja Branjevina). I am sure that any otherdiscussion about the preference of Starèevo and Körös groups for beef or mutton and lamb has noscientific relevance. It might be correct to observe that the routine roasting or grilling of lamb and muttonwas a common recipe of both the Greek and Körös Early Neolithic communities although the consumption of beef joints was not occasional (CHAPMAN, 2003: 101). As the statistics show, it was the major source ofanimal protein. We can observe that there are no archaeozoological indications (meat-eating, the divisionof carcasses, or the dispersal of bones) of any cultural diversity between the Early Neolithic of thesouthern Baèka/Bácska (i.e. Donja Branjevina) and the northernmore Körös Valley. The differencesbetween the southernmore Serbian and the Körös assemblages can derive from, and explained by thehabitudes of the Serbian prehistorians to collect animal bone samples without sieving.

c. To write and speak about an alleged admixture seems to be an old method to compromise excavation records and results, which otherwise would not fit into any conceptions. The best known case of so-called mixedassemblages is Pit 5A at Starèevo, about which scholarly opinions have been divided since the early 1930s.The question was whether the Vinèa A-like carinated ware was contemporaneous with the trueStarèevo-Körös types or one or the other of these types was in the pit as a later intrusion, i.e. they resultedfrom an admixture. Another suggestion was that “at Starèevo the black on red ware is definitely a somewhatlater phenomenon than the barbotine pottery” (FEWKES, 1936: 33; MAKKAY, 1969: 20-24; 1990: 113;EHRICH, 1977). The features I excavated (i.e. pit in Trench VIII at Szarvas 8/23: figs. 9, 1; 23, 8; 24, 8 and 27, 3; pit in Trench XVIII at Endrõd 3/39: fig. 70; and also the western pit in Trench XVIII at Endrõd 3/6: figs.47 and 48) demonstrate that the so-called Vinèa types, in my terminology Protovinèa shapes and ceramics(MAKKAY, 1990: 114 and 119; 1996: 44-47), were already present in the early/middle Körös assemblages, suggesting a Körös-Starèevo based internal development of the Vinèa Culture in the northern territories of the former Körös-Starèevo Culture over a large area, mainly north of the Danube (MAKKAY, 1990: 113and 114, and Pls. 1-3). At the same time, the characteristic barbotine pottery, with all its variants, occurs inall the Körös assemblages, although occasionally with varying percentages of different subtypes (i.e. true,diffused, fluted variants, and also vertical rows of arcade or channelled barbotines).

d. The well-known altars or lamps cannot be considered Körös-Starèevo short phase indicators, because ofthe absence of any detailed chronology of these objects (LAZAROVICI, 2003). Their systematic recurrencewithin all the Körös assemblages most probably indicates that they were in use throughout the whole lifeof this culture until the Protovinèa phase. The finds from Pit 1, in Trenches I-II/1974, at Szarvas 8/23, thesame pit containing white-on-red or brown fragments, consist of very different types of altars (fig. 23)64.One can speculate whether they were contemporaneous inside the pit or a part of them dropped into the fillfrom later or even earlier (?) deposits65.

e. The earlier level of EHRICH and BANKOFF (1992) was not specified, i.e. never identified in the excavations.f. The seven white-on-brown or white-on-red painted sherds from Szarvas 8/23 (Pit 1 in Trenches I-II/1974,

silo-Pits 1/4 and 8/3; these two latter pieces are from rapid rescue operations, and their closed charactermight be disputed), and the two (or three) similar white-on-brown fragments from a closed assemblage atEndrõd, 3/119 (i.e. Pit 12 in Trenches 26 and 32, from depths below 60 and 140 cm respectively; the pitwas sealed with a 25-30 cm stratified rubble of House 2) prove their stratigraphic position. Furthermore,the three fragments from Endrõd 119 were parts of the same vessel from the earliest occupation of thesmall site (MAKKAY, 1992: 126 and 127; see also below the respective chapter of Endrõd 3/119 andespecially the chronological chart). Since the occupation of Endrõd 3/119 ended before the Protovinèaphase (MAKKAY, 1992: 127), the white-on-red or brown painted vessel (i.e. its three partly adjoiningfragments) from Pit 12 can be attributed only to an early Körös Culture period, two full phases before theProtovinèa one (see the internal chronology of the site in table 14 below).

g. Even though the sherds with a distinctive dotted or linear white painted decoration are (would be) intrusive in three different pits of Szarvas 8/23, they demonstrate that the site was inhabited during an early phase ofthe Neolithic in the Szarvas area prior to the Classic or Middle Körös Culture, which is characterised bythe (complete) absence of painted pottery. Intrusive vessel fragments with white-painted, linear

63. The number of individuals of the wild fauna from Endrõd 119 is the following: aurochs 23, red deer 16, roe deer 37 and boar 29 (BÖKÖNYI, 1992a: 197, Table 2).64. One fragment belongs to the type of four-footed altars from Gura Baciului (LAZAROVICI and MAXIM, 1995: fig. 29). 65. Altar or lamp fragments found in Pit 1 in Trenches I-II/1974 at Szarvas 8/23 represent more types than the preliminary list provided by SCHUBERT (1999:179). There are many fragments from my Körös sites, which belong to altars; also this evidence is against the conclusions of SCHUBERT (1999: 178).

– 29

decoration could not have been brought here from a great distance (similarly, intrusive white paintedsherds cannot come from much later, i.e. Protovinèa assemblages). In this case Donja Branjevinarepresents the closest site in the Carpathian Basin with this distinctive pottery style (the only exception,with sporadic cases is the Hódmezõvásárhely-Szeged area: MAKKAY and TROGMAYER, 1966: Abb. 2, 2and 4; 6, 1; FOGAS, 2003: 49). Similarly, it is difficult to suggest that tradesmen, adventurers ormissionaries brought fragments of white dotted vessels from more southern sites to a still unsettled riverbank of the Old Körös in pre-Körös times. The layers of Pit 1 with white and black-painted sherds belongto a very early period in the development of the Körös-Starèevo Culture, and the two painted varieties (i.e.black-on-red and white-on-red) were deposited contemporaneously into the pit-fill. Why do we have tosuppose that the Körös potters did not know the black and white-painted styles simultaneously?

h. The white-painted sherds (with dotted or linear motifs) do not occur at the neighbouring assemblages withcharacteristic late (Protovinèa) shapes or their direct typological forerunners (see point c. above). On the otherhand, black-on-red painted sherds are occasionally present in assemblages with Protovinèa carinated shapes.

i. Since some stratigraphic data of Donja Branjevina can be seriously questioned, it would be premature todraw any final conclusions before their complete publication.

j. The material of my 22 excavations at eight Körös Culture sites allows me to say a few words about themonochrome pottery and its allegedly earliest variant, the early monochrome ware also called “monochromepre-phase” (SCHUBERT, 1999: 74, 75, 92 and 93)66, which includes also fine, red monochrome pottery, whichwas, as compared to other features of the Körös Valley, abundant in Pit 1, Trenches I-II of Szarvas 23(MAKKAY, 1981: 97 and fig. 1, 3)67. The conclusions drawn by M. ÖZDOÐAN (1999: 218 and 219) on thestratigraphic position of different ceramics at Hoca Çeºme, seem to be relevant to this case: “By phase II it isevident that the fine red and black monochrome wares of the preceding phases still persist, but their walls arenow considerably thicker, and their burnish less lustrous. New to the assemblage is a significant amount ofcoarse pottery. By the end of the phase, the so-called “barbotine” wares of Southeastern Europe have begun toappear”. Not introduced until the later stages of Phase II, these surface-roughened wares rapidly increase inpercentage to represent one of the most important pottery categories of Phase I. Thus, the chronological andgeographical distribution of this ware is very important. These ceramics, which are unknown to the Anatolianassemblages, make their appearance in the Balkans from the Early Neolithic onwards, up to the Bronze Age. InKaranovo I and in the regions of Starèevo, Körös and Criº, they make their appearance together with the finered-painted wares of the earliest phases. Another significant innovation at Hoca Çeºme is the use of white-on-redpainted pottery. Although they are not numerous, they are identical in ware, technique and decoration to theKaranovo I ceramics and also to the white-on-red painted fragments found in the Körös Valley. “It is also of notethat the painted sherds at Hoca Çeºme represent the first known examples of this type, which harks from thecoastal areas of the Aegean, thus revealing that the Balkan Neolithic cultures possessed southern and/ormaritime links. The technique of the incision employed is rather special: it was executed not by scratching, butby the consecutive impressions of a tool held at nearly a right angle to the surface” i.e. by the same technique,used to produce pottery decorated with impressed lines in the Körös Valley, as discussed above.Considering the common presence of the listed pottery types within phase II at Hoca Çeºme, the earliest

Körös Culture period documents the initial spread of these elements into the Carpathian Basin. The solution to these questions is that the Trianon border drawn in Versailles in 1920, cannot be correlated with

a (otherwise non-existing) hypothetical cultural border between the northern Starèevo and the northernmost KörösCultures. From the viewpoint of the pottery technology, the majority of the Körös pottery, the so-called plain (fine)ware, is monochrome and undecorated. It is usually slipped with different, mainly dark colours. Volume 2 of thisfinal report (MAKKAY and STARNINI, forthcoming 2) will illustrate a very high quantity of monochrome potteryunparalleled in the hitherto published Early Neolithic assemblages of entire southeast Europe. On the other hand, Ido not know any thorough description of the technological and decorative differences between the early andcommon monochrome wares. Schematic drawings of the Early Neolithic monochrome pottery from Bulgaria showKörös shapes together (in context?) with much later vessel types and handles (TODOROVA, 2003: figs. 9a-c).

Similar conclusions can be drawn on the chronological position of the monochrome ware in the EasternAdriatic. Its relative contemporaneous presence in an early horizon Ib was postulated from Çatal Höyük in

66. Schubert’s hypothesis on the chronological position of Maroslele-Pana lacks definite information about this site, as for example the existence ofwell-defined assemblages of different chronology. 67. In a few of these sherds organic temper was probably not used when preparing the body paste.

30 –

Central Anatolia across Thessaly to Škarin Samograd in the Eastern Adriatic by J. Müller, H. Parzinger andothers between 1988 and 1994. “Having analysed the stratigraphic sequences and corresponding potteryassemblages in the region, they found monochrome pottery in a cave site at Škarin Samograd deposited in thelowest layer superimposed with a later one that contains impresso-cardium pottery. Müller and Parzingerapplied the typological sequence to the whole region, maintaining the concept of an initial Neolithic that hasyet to be correlated with the appearance of monochrome pottery. Not for long; a year later Müller … pointedout that, in the microregion, two incompatible sequences are available and that, in fact, impresso-cardiumpottery is older than monochrome” (PETRU and BUDJA, 2003: 189).

Until detailed investigations are completed, the nature of the early monochrome pottery and its chronologyin the entire Northern Balkans and the Carpathian Basin remains a mystery.

The arbitrary layers of Trench II (i.e. the 1975 extension) were excavated in similar 20 cm spits. Theremains of Grave 3 were brought to light at a depth of 130 cm near the SW trench wall. It also belonged to theSarmatian period (fig. 4, plan). Below 190 cm, only small depressions were found deepening into the virginsubsoil. The arbitrary layer 190-210 cm contained much ash with potsherds, animal bones and burntwattle-and-daub fragments, while deeper spits yielded less material. The number of clay net-weightscontaining much chaff from these depths was very high.

Parts of Pit 1, beneath 150 cm, were fully excavated while its edges towards the south and the west, above150 cm, remained unexcavated. Most of the assemblage (potsherds, bones etc.) was discovered above thecentral, deepest parts of the structure. As mentioned above, the unexcavated southern and western parts of thesame pit were discovered in 1988 (fig. 5).

2.2.2. The second season: October 21st-31st, 1975

The second campaign was carried out during the autumn of 1975 with the same enthusiastic and alreadyexperienced team of Szarvas workmen. It was a rescue operation sponsored by the Békés County MuseumDirectory, because the plan for the water pipeline of the newly built Corn Drying Factory was to cross the site,between Trenches I-II/1974 and the Szarvas-Endrõd road (figs. 3 and 7). The main thrust of this excavation wasthe exposure of more Early Neolithic structural remains, keeping in mind the original scope to find stratigraphicevidence relating the Körös and Alföld Linear structures.

Trial Trench III/1975 was 12 m long and 0.8 m wide in the area of the planned pipeline ditch. After removingthe plough soil, between 0 and 30 cm, the next spit was excavated between 30 and 60 cm. The mixed soil was dryand contained Körös fragments out of context. The 60 cm surface was cleaned and dark coloured outlines and thebones of two graves were noticed in an otherwise uniform fawn-coloured cultural fill, i.e. the transitional depositat the top of the virgin subsoil. Graves 4 and 5 contained the contracted skeletal remains of Late BronzeAge-Early Hallstatt (so-called ’Pre-Scythian’) burials. Spit 60-90 cm yielded a few Körös sherds and some burntwattle-and-daub fragments at the northernmost end of the trench. The dark contours of a pit emerged at thesouthernmost edge of the trench although most of this, probably Sarmatian feature, lay in the unexcavated area.The outline of the Sarmatian Grave 6 pit was discovered after repeated cleanings at a depth of 90 cm. A densescatter of Körös fragments was recorded at the northernmost end of the trial trench between 90 and 100 cm.

Trial Trench IV (15x1 m) joined Trench III in an angle of 45° at its northernmost point, leading eastwards.The Körös pottery was found mainly in arbitrary layers 30-60 and 60-90 cm, near to the junction of TrenchesIII and IV. The cleaning at a depth of 90 cm showed the outline of a refuse pit of the Körös Culture (pit inTrench VI: figs. 7, 2 and 8, 1 and 2). Two more Sarmatian Graves (7 and 8) were discovered in this part of thetrench. The burial pits were excavated into the fill of the Körös pit to a depth of 90 cm; therefore they did notdisturb the lower part of the deposit of the pit. At a depth of 110 cm, the works were abandoned over most ofthe trench and also in trial Trench V (continuing the eastern end of Trench IV, 10x1 m), while a further TrenchVI (6.5x5.2 m), was opened above the Körös Culture refuse pit (Trench VI/Pit 1; see box reference numbersA19, A39, A57, A88-89, A92a-d). Grave 9, a Sarmatian burial, was found in Trench V.

The spits 30-60, 60-90 and 90-125/130 cm of Pit 1 in Trench VI, contained typical Körös pottery, a fewanimal bones, fragments of clay figurines and burnt wattle-and-daub fragments in the northern part of thetrench at a depth of ca 60 cm, with red burnt earth around it (it was a hearth in the pit). Similar burnt fragmentswere also found in the lower spit, i.e. between 60 and 90 cm, in the same place. Most probably these fragmentswere brought into the pit from the removal of a neighbouring structure (house or oven).

– 31

Fig. 7 - Szarvas, site 8/23. 1: General map of Trenches III-VI/1975. 2: Plan of Trench VI/1975.

32 –

Fig. 8 - Szarvas, site 8/23. 1: Trench VI as seen from NNE (P.84.833 and P.84.835). 2: Section A-A of the same pit. 3: Bowl with perforated bottom found atthe NW edge of Trench VI/1975 (from MAKKAY, 2001b: fig. 3, 1).

– 33

Cleaning at a depth of some 95 and 125 cm revealed the outline of the pit mainly in Trench VI (with a small portion out of the SE wall of the trench). A rich assemblage of pottery and Unio shells was found between 125and 148 cm, together with a lower number of partly burnt animal bones around the ashy deposit. There areburnt clay fragments with embedded pottery fragments, which were thrown into the pit fill. Therefore,originally they were parts of surface constructions. The finds of the arbitrary layers below 125 cm werecollected together and labelled as 125-175 cm. The pit fill above 125 cm, and below it, was different becausethe upper arbitrary layers contained many more potsherds. The deepest point of the pit was at 177 cm.

An entire Körös vessel, a complete clay figurine and a cylindrical bowl, part of an altar (the piece alreadymentioned in note 85) with white incrusted decorations were found on the surface of the virgin subsoil, in theburnt ashy fill of a small depression, near Grave 8. Another complete vessel with a pierced base wasdiscovered during the cleaning of the west wall (MAKKAY, 2001b: 287 and fig. 3, 1). It probably belonged to agrave lying outside the pit (fig. 8, 3), which could not be excavated.

2.2.3. The third season: October 13th-21st, 1979

The third campaign focused on the edge of the surviving site a few metres south of the Szarvas-Endrõd road.The main objective was the exploration of that part of the site where the Agricultural Cooperation prepared thebuilding of a road for heavy machines. Trench VII was opened at a short distance from Trench 1975/III, 6 m longand 1 m wide, in SE-NW direction (figs. 2 and 9, 1). After the removal of the disturbed plough soil, the firstarbitrary layer was excavated between 40-70 cm, with the sporadic presence of Körös pottery in most of thetrench, and a rich pit-like fill at a depth of 60-70 cm, at the NE end. The fill colour was light grey, with animalbones and vessel fragments with complete profiles. The cleaning, at a depth of 70-80 cm, revealed the outline of a refuse pit, without any other discolouration in the other part of the trench. Before finishing the excavation of thispit (Pit VIII/1), a new trial trench was opened from the NW edge of Trench VII. This was Trench VIII, 10 m longand 1 m wide. During its excavation, human bones were discovered at the depth of 40-50 cm.

Grave 11 is the lower part of a crouched skeleton (fig. 9, 1 and 2), most probably disturbed by the digging of Pit1 in Trench VIII (Pit VIII/1)68. The body was buried on its right side at a depth of some 40-50 cm, NE-SW oriented,in a greyish Körös layer. A complete, small, hemispherical vessel with broken lip was found a few centimetres from the back part (pelvis) of the skeleton. This vessel had been deposited as a grave good. It contained a small stone chiseland a stone axe (fig. 9, 3 and 4). Grave goods are very rare in the Körös burials (see also the vessel with a pierced basein the wall of Trench VI: fig. 8, 3)69. I am not aware of any similar grave goods from the Carpathian Basin. On theother hand, the attribution of the hemispherical bowl and the two stone tools to the Körös period is certain.

Grave 10 was a grave vessel of the Gáva Culture (or ’Pre-Scythian’ period) without cremated remains (theurn itself was very badly damaged by ploughing and/or soil loosening), while Grave 12 was a Sarmatian skeleton (fig. 9, 1). Graves 4, 5 and 10 probably belong to the same Gáva Culture biritual cemetery (MAKKAY, 2003: 520,the chronological chart). The cleaning at a depth of 70 cm revealed the outlines of Pit 1 and Pit 2. The chronologyand character of Pit 2 have remained unknown. It probably was a disturbed Late Bronze Age burial.

To excavate Pit 1, in Trench VIII/1979, we opened two extensions, 1.4 and 1.5 m wide respectively, towardsthe NW and SE in the NE part of Trench VIII. The arbitrary layer between 70 and 90 cm was extended to thenorthern quarter of the trench, while deeper parts (as deep as 140 cm) narrow down to a small inner depression ofcircular shape. A thin layer of soot covered the walls and the pit bottom. The filling between 70 and 90 cm was alight greyish loose soil. The fill above it was greyish, with very much ash. It extended beyond the edges of the pitcut into the virgin subsoil at 90 cm. Most probably the pit was excavated from above into this greyish Körös layer.This fact determines its chronology within the sequence, which is supported by the pottery assemblage, represented by Protovinèa shapes (figs. 23, 8; 24, 8 and 27, 3; see also MAKKAY, 1990: 120 and figs.). An extraordinarily importantfind was discovered in the ashy layer: a fragment of a broken stone figurine with an incised decoration (fig. 11, 2).This is the only stone figurine so far known in the entire Körös Culture inventory (MAKKAY, 1993: fig. 2, 2a-d). Thefill below 90 cm was dark, loose brown in the centre, and light brown and yellowish towards the edges.

68. According to the excavation records the skeleton was disturbed by soil loosening (MAKKAY in MRT8, 1989: 395). At present, this suggestion seems tobe unrealistic, because the broken parts of the skulls, destroyed by soil loosening, are to be found in close vicinity, in such cases. 69. See Grave 5 of Deszk-Olajkút, site 1, with one vessel as grave good (TROGMAYER, 1968b: 13). The grave had been excavated into a refuse pit. On theother hand, several finds from a grave of a young woman from the Transdanubian Starèevo site Máriaasszonysziget (remains of a large pedestalled bowl,scattered Unio shells, fish scales, two large, flat grinding stones) regarded as grave goods seem to be highly conjectural (KALICZ et al., 2002: 16 and 17).According to the Hungarian text, the skeleton was found below the Starèevo Culture refuse pit (“Starèevo hulladékgödör, alatta a Starèevo kultúratemetkezése”). According to this sentence, however, the burial was intrusive in the fill of the Starèevo feature 52 (KALICZ et al., 2002: 17). The context andEarly Neolithic attribution of the burial is dubious, because of the absence of any stratigraphic evidence.

34 –

Fig. 9 - Szarvas, site 8/23. 1: Plan of Trenches VII and VIII/1979 with Graves 10 (Gáva Culture), 11 (Early Neolithic) and 12 (Sarmatian period), and PitsVIII/1 and VIII/2. 2: Grave 11 and the position of its grave furniture. 3-4: Rounded bowl and two stone axes found in Grave 11.

– 35

Fig. 10 - Szarvas, site 8/23. 1: Plan of Trench IX with Graves 14 (Early Neolithic) and 13 (Sarmatian period), and Pit 1 in Trench IX. 2: Plan and sectionA-A of Pit 1 in Trench IX/1979. 3: view of Pit 1 in Trench IX taken from the south (P.103.422).

36 –

Fig. 11 - Szarvas, site 8/23. 1: Graves 13 (Sarmatian period) and 14 (Early Neolithic) in Trench IX/1979 (P. 103.424). 2: Broken stone figurine from TrenchVIII/1979, Pit 1, -60 cm (P.109.584: see MAKKAY, 1993: fig. 2, 2).

– 37

Trench IX, 1979 (4x4.5 m) was excavated east of Trench VIII, below a thick surface scatter of Köröspotsherds (fig. 10, 1-3). After removing two arbitrary layers (0-35 and 35-70/75 cm), the cleaning revealed theoutline of a medium-sized pit with a mainly dark colour fill, containing much ash with many wattle-and-daubfragments and animal bones, whilst the presence of Körös pottery was scarce. The fill had much ash with snailsnear the WSW wall, while the opposite part was harder and darker in colour. Its deepest part lay at a depth of 185cm. The WNW part of the pit extends beyond Trench IX. In order to excavate this outer part we opened anextension Trench 9, m long and 1 m wide. The cleaning showed that only a few centimetres of Pit 1 were insidethe area of this trial trench. Further cleaning revealed Grave 13, a Sarmatian burial.

During the excavation of Grave 13, the bones of a crouched skeleton were found in its SW corner (Grave 14). The Sarmatian Grave 13 had been robbed, and the digging of both the burial pit and the robbers pit had cut thelower part of the legs and the skull of Grave 14 (the complete skull was later found in the fill of the robbers pit).The body was found on its left side, in a crouched position, at the depth of 85 cm, in a greyish layer above thevirgin subsoil, with its arms bent towards the face. It was oriented SE-NW (figs. 10, 1 and 11, 1). It was a KörösCulture burial and, similarly to Grave 11, it had been deposited in the Neolithic palaeosoil outside a refuse pit.

2.2.3.1. The deposition of a measuring device on September 14th-15th, 1982

At I. Bognár-Kutzián’s request, a dosimeter for thermoluminescence measurements was placed in a small(6x3 m) trench north-east of the 1974-1979 trenches, 8 m from the edge of the Szarvas-Endrõd road, on itssouthern bank (fig. 2, where an asterisk marks the place of the deposition of the device in the southwestern part of silo-Trench 1). The two small, metal cartridges were placed into the grey layer of the late (Protovinèa) phase ofthe Körös Culture (they were never recovered again). During the froth flotation of the soil samples collected from a layer close to this late Körös horizon, two small fragments (ca 1.5x2 mm) of green mineral closely resemblingmalachite were recovered (CHAPMAN and TYLECOTE, 1983: 374; MAKKAY, 1997a: 37, note 8). The finds werecollected together with a great number of Late Körös ceramics, which, according to their characteristics arecontemporaneous with the finds from the pit in Trench VIII/1979 (fig. 9, and for the finds, MAKKAY, 1990: 120,and the respective illustrations). It is important to point out that Middle and Late Neolithic or Copper Age findswere not discovered in this part of the site and that the fill of the 1982 deposition pit did not show any disturbance.The occurrence of copper finds from the Early Neolithic sites of SE Europe (CHAPMAN and TYLECOTE, 1983;MAKKAY, 1997a: 37 and notes 3-7) might suggest the use of native copper already in Late Körös times.

2.2.4. 1988 short rescue excavations

In 1988 the amount of wheat produced by the Dózsa Agricultural Cooperation lands was very great and itsstorage capacity limited. The Kolkhoz decided to store four thousand tons of wheat in underground silos to beexcavated in the area adjacent to the centre of the Cooperation, i.e. in the area of site 23, between the Endrõd andÖrménykút roads (figs. 2 and 3), without reporting to the local museum or other authorities. The third excavationof the Microregion Project was carried out at Endrõd 3/119 in July1988. One morning, driving to the site, Isuddenly realised an extraordinary heavy bulldozer activity on the site, which, as mentioned above, is locatednear the Szarvas-Endrõd local road. Soon the Tessedik Museum started the rescue operations and the Endrõdteam arrived to help excavate the Neolithic features. During the few days at our disposal, it was impossible tocarry out any stratigraphic excavations within the territory of the five silo-trenches of squared, irregular shape,each measuring some 50x7 m (fig. 2, Trenches 1-5/1988), parallel to the Szarvas-Endrõd local road, spaced at8-10 m from each other (fig. 12 shows the excavation of the silo-trenches in progress)70. The silos were dug asdeep as 4 m, and there was a possibility to carry out rescue excavations in those eight days in order to recoverarchaeological features. 23 or 26 graves were discovered, 11 of which belonged to the Körös Culture, 9 to theSarmatian Period, and 1 to the period of the Hungarian conquest. The number of the partly excavated featuresreached 25 (JUHÁSZ, 2002: 89). The account of the features within each silo-trench was limited to briefobservations on the characteristics of the fill. None of the pits were even briefly described nor were samplescollected. Some pits’ profiles were drawn (figs. 13, 5 and 19, 3) showing their shape and outline. Neverthelesssince these had been obtained after the pit had been completely emptied (“excavated”) they could not be used toobtain information regarding the fill (stratigraphy, etc.). In most cases, the excavation strategy was limited to the

70. The general map of the operation, the photographs of the graves and a short excavation report were made by Dr. Irén Juhász, the then director of theSzarvas Museum. I express my best thanks for her cooperation and data.

38 –

Fig. 12 - Szarvas, site 8/23. 1: 1988 rescue excavations (courtesy of T. Kádas). 2: View of Pit 1 in Trench I/1974 from the south, with Sarmatian grave 2(P.79.738).

– 39

collection of pottery and also animal bones71, and the detection and recording of small finds and graves from thefill, in most cases photographically. The following table refers to the photographs72 of the features and graves

Fig. 13 - Szarvas, site 8/23. 1: Ritual Pit 2 in silo-Trench 1/1988, with bread-shaped clay weights. 2: One of the bread-shaped clay weights with anembedded Körös sherd. 3: Reconstructed vessel from silo-Trench 5, at 50 m in the northeastern edge of Trench 4: Grave 2/1988 (see also fig. 6, 2). 5:Section A-B with the position of Grave 17/1988.

71. My visit in the Tessedik Múzeum, Szarvas on April 16th, 2003 led to the discovery of numerous large plastic bags deposited in the basement of theMuseum, which contain animal bones from Szarvas 8/23 (1988 rescue excavations), which were not studied by S. Bökönyi or anybody else. 72. The numbers refer to the negative numbers of the archives of the AI, Budapest. Most of the photographs were taken by I. Juhász and T. Kádas.

40 –

(figs. 6, 2 and 3; 14, 1 and 2; 15, 1 and 2; 16, 1 and 2 and 17, 1 and 2) taken during those few days in relation to therescued, Körös Culture finds recorded under the box reference number (BRN):

Photograph numbers73 Silo-Trench features Box Ref. Numbers

141.850 1/2 -141.851 1/2 -141.852 1/1 A102141.853 1/1 A102141.854 1/1 -141.855 1/1 -141.872 2/Grave 10 -141.881 3/2 A103-104141.882 3/2 A103-104141.884 3/8 A98141.897 3/3 A97, A113141.898 3/3 A97141.899 2/Grave 10 -141.900 2/Grave 10 -141.901 2/Grave 12 -141.902 2/Grave 12 -141.905 3/3 A97, A113141.906 3/3 A97, A113141.907 3/Grave 16 -141.908 3/3 A97, A113141.909 3/Grave 15 -141.910 3/3 A97, A113142.040 3/2 A96, A104142.041 1/2 -142.041 1/2 -

There are no documents (photographs) of the following features with box reference numbers (with theircarefully collected archaeological material):

- 1/3 A102- 1/5c A102- 1/7 A102- 2/1 A93, A103- 2/2 A104, A112- 2/Pit North A94- 3/1 A95, A103- 3/4 A105- 3/5 A106- 3/8 (fig. 18, 3) A98, A106- 4/1 A107- 4/2 A99a-d- 4/8 A108- 5/50 m A11474

- 5/1 A110- 5/2 A109- 5/3 A110- 5/4 A111- 5/6 A103, A111

It must be emphasised that the refuse Pits 3/3 and 4/2 were excavated by the workmen of the Endrõd 119team under the supervision of the present author and that they have to be considered closed assemblages.

73. Negative numbers of the Archive of the Institute of Archaeology of the Hungarian Academy of Science. The photographs are the only availabledocuments for the features and graves excavated in 1988.74. A reconstructed large storage jar (fig. 13, 3).

– 41

There are further, still unstudied ceramic finds in the basement collections of the Tessedik Museum comingfrom the following silo features, referred here according to their Plastic Bag Numbers (= number written on thelarge plastic bags, in the Tessedik Museum):

Silo-Trench features PB Number

1/3 1921/5 921/7 281 123, 130, 152, 158, 169 2/1 170, 1852/2 1742 51, 155, 17, 180silo-Trench 2 or 3 18, 63, 109, 1283/1 213/2 11, 53, 1843/4 1903/7 187silo-Trench 3 or 4 1664/1 1884/2 10, 173, 175-177, 189, 1914/3 171, 1824/7 1835/2 1795/3 1815/4 1865/5 1725 2, 178

The noticeable discrepancy between the excavation records made by the staff of the Tessedik Museum(mainly amateur students) and our registered archaeological material derives from the methodology employed:the workmen of the Endrõd team collected only finds (mainly vessel fragments) from the discovered featuresvery carefully using labels provided by the Museum. The drawings with a short description made by the museumstaff have survived only for some three features: the crouched skeletons, Pit 3/3 (figs. 18, 1 and 19; see alsoAppendix I) and finally the unique deposit of flat, oval clay weights (fig. 13, 1, 2 and 4). First I will present a fulllist of the EN graves discovered in 1988.

A number of graves were discovered in the silos, half of which belonging to the Sarmatian Period cemetery.The crouched skeletons were considered burials of the Körös Culture. These graves are:

• Grave 2: crouched skeleton discovered in feature 3, in silo-Trench 1, SE-NW oriented, lying on its rightside. The body was placed in the fill of a rubbish pit and became (or was) covered with large wattle-anddaub fragments (G2 in figs. 2; 6, 2 and 13, 4).

• Grave 3: the only available document of this grave is the schematic general map of the 1988 operationsdescribed as object 3 in silo-Trench 2 = G3 (fig. 2, silo-Trench 2, near Grave 10 = G10). It was very probably acrouched skeleton lying on its left side, oriented towards WSW.

• Grave 10: a crouched skeleton of an adult found in silo-Trench 2, ca N-S oriented, lying on its left side, at adepth of 83-89 cm, with its arms drawn in front of the face (fig. 15, 1). According to the note of the draftsman,parts of the skeleton were disturbed and the right side of the skull had been cut by the bulldozer.

• Grave 12: tightly flexed burial, lying on its right side, WSW-ENE oriented, with both hands bent in front of theface. The bones of the skeleton of an adult were in an excellent state of preservation; the upper part of the skullhad been cut by a machine. It was found in silo-Trench 2 at a distance of 34 m from one (unrecorded) end of thesilo-trench. The vertebrae near the pelvis were missing. Sex unknown, no grave goods (fig. 15, 2).

• Grave 14 was exposed in silo-Trench 2, W-E oriented, lying on its right side. The legs were tightly contracted, theright arm bent below the skull and the left arm in front of the chest, although the upper part of the skeleton wasdisturbed (fig. 16, 1). No grave goods. Many sherds were found beneath the bones, which means that the dead bodywas buried in the fill of a rubbish pit. Unfortunately there is no further information about this hypothetical pit.

• Grave 15 was found lying on its left side in silo-Trench 3, almost N-S oriented. Legs sharply contracted, armsheld in front of the face (fig. 16, 2). No grave goods. Red-burnt clay plaster fragments were discoveredbeneath the legs. The body was most probably buried in an unidentified rubbish pit.

42 –

Fig. 14 - Szarvas, site 8/23. Bread-shaped clay weight with dermatoglyphic impressions (drawings by E. Starnini).

– 43

Fig. 15 - Szarvas, site 8/23. 1: Grave 10/1988 in silo-Trench 2, (P.141.872). 2: Grave 12 in silo-Trench 2 (P.141.501).

44 –

Fig. 16 - Szarvas, site 8/23. 1: Grave 14/1988 in silo-Trench 2 (P.141.500). 2: Grave 15/1988 in silo-Trench 3 (P.141.909).

– 45

Fig. 17 - Szarvas, site 8/23. 1: Grave 16/1988 in silo-Trench 3 (P.141.507). 2: Grave 17 in silo-Trench 3 (photograph by R. Gläser).

46 –

• Grave 16 was found undisturbed in silo-Trench 3, lying on its left side and ESE-WNW oriented. Legs sharplycontracted, arms bent in front of the chest (fig. 17, 1). No grave goods.

• Grave 17: the bones of an irregularly placed, contracted skeleton were found in silo-Trench 3, lying on its rightside and NW-SE oriented. The back part of the skeleton was cut by the bulldozer. No grave goods (fig. 17, 2).

• Grave 18: in silo-Trench 2 at a depth of 110 cm, a strongly crouched skeleton lying on it left side, with arms infront of the face and the finger bones on the neck. Oriented towards ENE (fig. 18, 1). No grave goods.

Fig. 18 - Szarvas, site 8/23. 1: Grave 18/1988 in silo-Trench 2. 2: Grave 23/1988 in silo-Trench 4 (P.141.819). 3: Pit 8 in silo-Trench 3 (Pit 3/8), humanrepresentation on the wall of a large container with barbotine decoration (drawing by L. Hornyák).

– 47

• Grave 23: bones of a disturbed, crouched skeleton discovered in silo-Trench 4 (fig. 18, 2).• Grave 26: the only available information about this grave is a short description without any photograph or drawing.

A crouched skeleton was found in silo-Trench 5 near Oven 3 (the cultural attribution of this oven is unknown). Itwas oriented W-E on its right side. The body was placed in the ashy layer of a Körös Culture rubbish pit.It is very sad to report that the largest number of graves ever yielded by a Körös site (a total of 13 graves with

bones in a good state of preservation) in most cases lack any detailed anthropological description (see AppendixIII). The table in Appendix II shows their position and orientation. Regarding the details of these burials, nodefinite rules can be applied for the orientation of the body, or for the direction the body faced. Most graves wereoriented towards the west or northwest (12/1988, 14/1988, 17/1988, 26/1988). They were lying on their rightside, with the exception of grave 11/1979, lying on its right side, but oriented towards the NE, and grave 3/1988on its left side, also oriented towards the WSW. The graves oriented towards the N-S (Graves 1/1974, 10/1988and 15/1988) were laid on their left with their face towards the east.

Sacrificial Pit 1/2: a strange feature: object 2 was found in silo-Trench 1 (fig. 13, 1 and 2). It was a small pitintruding into the uppermost layer of the yellow, virgin subsoil. It came to light when the bulldozer scraped thelowermost palaeosoil. According to its location, in the central part of silo-Trench 1 (fig. 2, Trench 1, n. 2), thisfeature cannot be identical to the similar deposit found near the northern edge of Pit 1/1974 at the trench wall (Pit2/1974) most of which was outside Trenches I-II (fig. 2, the western corner of Trench I/1974, between G1 andG14). Its fill contained 12 pieces75 of large loaf-shaped weights made of coarse ware. We were unable toexcavate it properly. Only one photograph and one drawing (fig. 13, 1) were made after its cleaning. Bothdeposits contained the same concentration of flat, elongated, clay weights. In effect, object 2 in silo-Trench1/1988 lay opposite to Pit 2 in Trenches I-II/1974. Two clay weights from the 1988 deposit contained anembedded Körös sherd of polished, red slipped ware, which attribute it to the same culture (fig. 13, 2).

The wall of the 1988 shallow depression was heavily burnt and red-burnt powder-like soil filled the spacebetween the unpierced clay weights or loafs. They are of the same flat and elongated, oval shape, made ofmedium-coarse ware with much straw, chaff as organic temper, and were well fired. A few of the complete pieces are deformed, as if the potter dropped them to the ground or pushed them into a hard surface. Finger impressionsare common on their surface, and in one case dermatoglyphs are visible (fig. 14). Large cattle bones were alsofound in the assemblage (fig. 13, 1), which make a sacrificial purpose reasonable. Records do not mentionwhether these bones were found burnt or unburnt.

Altogether 12 complete or almost complete pieces were found associated with a few fragments of thesebread-like weights or plaster sling missiles which, to my knowledge, are unparalleled in the wholeKörös-Starèevo material of the Carpathian Basin (fig. 13, 1 and 2). On the other hand Early Migration periodassemblages contain similar bread-like clay weights (see below).

The 8th millennium excavated material of some villages in Southeastern Turkey, contains plaster slingmissiles of a somewhat different shape, often in great quantities, and were clearly not intended to keep flocks ofsheep (one of the workmen showed the excavators how shepherds used slings to hurl stones at predatorsthreatening their sheep) (PERLES, 2001: 229). These 8th millennium clay sling missiles are identical to the Greekand Roman sling stones suggesting that they were used for warfare (LEBLANC, 2003: 19 and 20). The sacrificialcharacter of the Szarvas pieces does not exclude such a purpose.

Clay sling bullets are often found in clusters in the Neolithic contexts of Greece and the Balkans, and arecommonly considered fighting or hunting weapons (PERLES, 2001: 228-231; CHAPMAN, 2003: 99). At Elateia,three clusters of twenty-eight and six pieces were found in the house floors. These sling bullets are of astandardised, ovoid shape, with two more or less pointed butts, and often have a small-flattened surface (seethe flattened pieces of Szarvas) on which they can rest without rolling over. They are often simply dried orhalf-baked, differing very much from their Szarvas parallels. Moreover their length (average 6 cm) anddiameter (3 cm) are considerably smaller than those of the Szarvas specimens. This circumstance alone makesimprobable the practical use of the Szarvas pieces.

Clay weights or ’breads’ of a similar character have been found also at some early Slavic sites of thenorth-eastern part of the Carpathian basin, dated to the VII century AD (ISTVÁNOVITS, 2001: 171 and 172 andfig. 10). According to a detailed analysis, a part of them was used to build or reinforce the walls of the ovens,while others, among which the flattened pieces were (unknown) ritual objects, called clay breads or loafs

75. The complex undoubtedly contained more pieces because the feature was found after a heavy bulldozer had cut its upper part and damaged some of

them. Unfortunately, only parts of pieces were collected, which seemed possible to reconstruct.

48 –

(STANCIU, 1998). The remoteness of the parallel, however, makes it hard to accept these interpretations in thecase of the Szarvas clay weights.

The dimensions (length, width and thickness) of the Szarvas pieces are correlated among themselves. Theyshow a close, formal similarity (even a standardized shape) indicating that they reflect the same (althoughunknown) symbolic function. Their correlation is shown in table 6 below.

Weight/gr. Length Width Thickness Shape State Notes

1045 16.0 11.6 6.0 flat complete

1065 19.5 11.5 5.7 deformed restored

1140 17.2 9.8 6.2 rounded complete carbonate and ceramic inclusions

1185 19.9 11.3 6.7 deformed complete finger impressions

1210 17.8 11.2 6.8 flat complete Körös ceramic inclusions, finger imp.

1275 16.4 10.8 6.6 rounded complete carbonate inclusions, finger impressions

1280 17.5 10.7 6.8 rounded complete finger impressions

1325 17.5 11.2 7.2 rounded complete carbonate inclusions, finger impressions

1340 16.5 11.8 5.6 flat restored carbonate and ceramic inclusions

1390 17.0 11.2 7.6 flat complete many carbonates, finger impressions

1430 17.8 10.9 7.0 flat complete carbonate and ceramic inclusions, dermatoglyhps

1475 16.8 11.1 6.9 rounded complete finger impressions, Körös sherd

Table 6 - Characteristics of the clay “breads” from Szarvas 8/23, Pit 1/2. Measures in cm.

Lengths and thicknesses, but especially widths, fall into categories with restricted limits and the measure ofthe twelve widths is very close (between 9.8 and 11.8 cm). This fact can be interpreted in such a way that thepotter, during the manufacture of these objects76 wanted to keep standardised measures77. Of special interest is apiece weighing 1430 grams with fingertip impressions i.e. dermatoglyphs (fig. 14).

The anthropologists believe that dermatoglyphic traits can provide valuable information about populationhistory. Unfortunately, for ancient times we have only very sporadic dermatoglyphic records from the EasternMediterranean. The Swedish scholars have collected about 200 fingerprints impressed in clay and paint onMycenaean, Minoan and LBA Cypriot pottery and on Linear B tablets (DAY, 2001: 148-151) while there is no(published) evidence of Neolithic dermatoglyphs.

Sacrificial Pit 3/3 was discovered by the northern wall of silo-Trench 3. It was the only Neolithic feature(together with Pit 4/2) properly excavated and recorded in the excavation notes. The pottery from this feature(BRNs A97 and A113) is represented by eight complete/reconstructed vessels, among which are stronglycarinated and pedestalled bowls (figs. 19; 28, 2, 5; 29, 1 and 3-7). These typical markers of lateKörös-Protovinèa periods were associated with characteristic Körös types of both fine and coarse ware, among which are barbotine decorations (true, diffuse and fluted variants and also vertical rows of arcade barbotine)and fingertip impressions on globular storage jars. Two small body sherds show the well-known decorationtechnique of thin, incised, and impressed, vertical lines (see MAKKAY, 2000: no. 105). Vessel bases are alsocharacteristic Körös types (solid pedestals, flat distinct and defined disc bases, low rings), while pedestals 4-6cm high are characteristic of the developed and late Körös phases.

The material collected from Pit 3/3 can be roughly contemporaneous with Pit 4/2 with a small, althoughnon-unimportant difference: the pottery from Pit 3/3 does not contain a single piece of ALP fragments orlinear-decorated pieces resembling the Early ALP = Szatmár and ALP decoration patterns (fig. 30). This factdefines its position in the internal chronological sequence of Szarvas 8/23, placing Pit 3/3 immediately beforePit 1, in Trench VIII/1979.

The photographs of the excavation show that, at the bottom of the silo-trench scraped by the bulldozer, adiscoloured (darker area) was noticed, containing fragments of large vessels. The excavation of the fill of this darkpit brought to light a large antler near the wall of the silo-trench, lying in an oblique position, with a brokenfour-footed clay altar placed on one of the branches and an upturned conical small bowl on another tip (fig. 19, 1-9).The antler was found between two thin charcoal layers, while the central part of the pit contained much ash. Above the upper charcoal layer, there was a fill of loose, brown soil. The lower and upper fill contained a number of potsherds,although, at the same time, a careful search resulted in finding 21 stone implements, all but one of Zemplén-Tokaj

76. I believe that these pieces were made by the same potter.77. This very early standard measure was probably in relation with human hand. For instance, the Greek daktyloi (äÜêôõëïé) refer to very ancient timeswhen there had been inventions of different crafts: arts, carpentry and pottery making (MAKKAY, 2001: 51, note 58).

– 49

Fig. 19 - Szarvas, site 8/23. 1-9: Sacrificial Pit 3/3 in silo-Trench 3/1988. 1-3: Plan and section of the pit. 4-5: Broken clay altar and conical bowl from thepit. 6-9: photographs of the pit.

50 –

obsidian. Most of them are unretouched flakes or broken bladelets except for a few, which are retouched instruments(see Appendix I). Most of them were found at the depth of the antler and beneath it (fig. 19, 3).

Pit 3/3 is unparalleled in the presently known material of the Körös Culture and also in its neighbouring andcontemporary cultures. The uniqueness of the feature, the presence of a deposited antler between two layers with burnt wooden (and also plant?) remains, the deposition of a (broken) clay altar and the small bowl on tips of an antler,finally the great number of obsidian implements (not documented elsewhere) makes it very probable that thisfeature was a sacrificial pit (a ritual shaft?, like the similar shafts of Endrõd 3/119; see below: sacrificial pits), and its deposited finds were remains of probably repeated sacrifices. The precise character of these sacrifices (fertilitycult?, a totally unknown cult related to the preparation of the stone tools?, hunting magic?) has, however, remainedobscure. The discovery of flint artefacts in the ditches of some henge monuments make probable the existence ofNeolithic ritual customs connected with the preparation of stone tools (MAKKAY, 2001d: 20, note 89)78.

A great number of exclusively obsidian flakes and implements (71 specimens: see Appendix I) were alsofound in silo-Trench 4, Pit 2 (i.e. Pit 4/2):

The obsidian of the assemblage was imported from the Zemplén-Tokaj sources, and belongs to theErdõbénye variant (STARNINI, 1993: 66). Trapezes recur also in the Méhtelek assemblage (fig. 131, 4), and thepresence of many end-scrapers (together with the extensive use of obsidian) are signs of development towardsthe ALP. On the other hand, not a single piece of Banat flint was found in these two assemblages, which is acommon characteristic of both the typical Körös and also Méhtelek chipped stone assemblages (STARNINI,1993: 69, fig. 17, 1). The presence, in this pit, of Zemplén-Tokaj obsidian in a relatively great quantity can becorrelated with the nine ALP type pedestalled bowl fragments (fig. 30, 6). It is well known that the obsidiansources of the Zemplén-Tokaj region were controlled by the Early ALP (i.e. Szatmár) groups during thetransitional period between the Körös and the following ALP Culture. The general characteristics of these twostone assemblages of Szarvas 23 are presented in Appendix I (figs. 31-34).

There is abundant information about the other finds (first of all pottery) from this pit, together with some otherpotsherds now in the stores of the Szarvas Museum (PBN 10; 173; 175-177; 189 and 191). According to theschematic excavation map (fig. 2), Pit 4/2 was one of the largest refuse pits of the Körös site, found in 198879. Oneof the main characteristics of this pit is the presence of nine ALP fragments of pedestalled bowls and othershapes (figs. 26, 6 and 30, 6), associated with Late Körös, i.e. Protovinèa types. The rich pottery assemblage(BRNs A99a-e) is composed of thirty-three complete or reconstructed vessels and a great number of fragments of carinated bowls (more than one hundred pieces, belonging to at least thirty different vessels; figs. 21; 22; 23, 1-6; 24, 1-6; 25; 26, 1 and 6 and 27, 2, 6 and 8), which sometimes probably belong to pedestalled forms,although sherds of finger-pinched and fingertip impressed, coarse Körös pottery were also present. Otherclassic Körös elements are semicircular and shell impressions, solid central discs of defined bases andcharacteristic true barbotine decorations. Strangely, the characteristic Szatmár type coarse pottery (which ispresent at some features at Endrõd 3/6, see below) was not present in the Szarvas 23 features, not even inassociation with its contemporary Protovinèa shapes.

To conclude, as mentioned above, Pit 2/2 and Pit 1 in Trenches I-II/1974 refer to the same structure, withpotsherds from the lower layer, between 110-230 cm (fig. 5)80.

2.2.4. THE AUGUST 1993 LAST RESCUE OPERATIONS

At the end of the summer of 1993, the owner of the area (the Gallicoop Ltd, Tel Aviv, Israel) decided to refillthe five silo-trenches excavated in 1988. There was the possibility to investigate, partly, a few Early Neolithicfeatures (i.e. parts of refuse pits), which had been discovered in 1988 and left unexcavated. These assemblages arecomposed of characteristic Körös material. One reconstructed vessel is a large four-footed handled cup, a uniqueshape within this class81. The finds of this last rescue operation are at present stored in the Szarvas Museum (PBN130, 123, 51, 155, 167, 63, 128 and 166, listed here in the order of the numbering of the features in question).

78. A similar ritual activity can also be connected with the Alvastra enclosure where some 40 specimens of a specific axe type were prepared and leftunfinished (MAKKAY, 2001a: 28).79. The small collection of potsherds from this feature was found in the basement (or PB) collections of the Szarvas Museum on 16 th April, 2003 butremained unstudied. See Appendix VII.80. The Inventory Number of the Békéscsaba Museum is 78.42.22.81. For this characteristic Körös shape see MAKKAY (1980: 210 and 211, Pls. 119-122). The number of this type in the Körös features, unrecorded in the assemblagesof the Körös Culture before my 1980 paper, has significantly increased since then. A full catalogue will be presented in MAKKAY and STARNINI (forthcoming 2).

– 51

Fig. 20 - Szarvas, site 8/23. 1-9: Reconstructed clay lamps or altars from Pit 1 in Trenches I-II/1974 from different depths. 1: Trench II/70-90 cm. 2: TrenchII/150-170 cm. 3: Trenches I-II/110-130 cm. 4: Trenches I-II/60-90 cm. 5: 0-50 cm. 6: Trench I/70-90 cm. 7: Trench I/110-130 cm. 8: The baulk betweenTrenches I-II/0-130 cm. 9: Trenches I-II/90-110 cm.

52 –

Fig. 21 - Szarvas, site 8/23. Reconstructed vessels of the Protovinèa phase from silo-Trench 4, pit 2 (Pit 4/2; P.144.971, 144.989, 144.995, 145.020,145.023, 145.025, 145.057).

– 53

Fig. 22 - Szarvas, site 8/23. Reconstructed vessels of the Protovinèa phase from silo-Trench 4, Pit 2 (Pit 4/2) (drawings by E. Starnini).

54 –

Fig. 23 - Szarvas, site 8/23. 1-6: Reconstructed vessels of the Protovinèa phase from silo-Trench 4, Pit 2 (Pit 4/2). 7: Silo-Trench 5, Pit 3 (Pit 5/3). 8: Pit 1 inTrench VIII/1979 (drawings by E. Starnini).

– 55

Fig. 24 - Szarvas, site 8/23. 1-6: reconstructed Protovinèa vessels from silo-Trench 4, Pit 2 (Pit 4/2). 7: Fragment of a very carinated bowl from Pit 1 inTrench VIII/1979 (drawings by E. Starnini).

56 –

Fig. 25 - Szarvas, site 8/23. 1-3: Reconstructed deep bowls and pedestalled bowl of the Protovinèa phase from silo-Trench 4, Pit 2 (Pit 4/2) (P145.045,145.018, 144.970).

– 57

Fig. 26 - Szarvas, site 8/23. Reconstructed coarse ware bowls of Szatmár type from the Protovinèa phase with incised decoration. 1, 6: from silo-Trench 4,Pit 2 (Pit 4/2). 2: from silo-Trench 5, at 50 m in the northeastern edge of Trench. 4. 3: from Trench IX/Pit 1, 75-180 cm. 4: from silo-Trench 5, Pit 3 (Pit 5/3).5: from silo-Trench 5, Pit 2 (Pit 5/2) (drawings by E. Starnini).

58 –

Fig. 27 - Szarvas, site 8/23. Reconstructed carinated and pedestalled bowls of the Protovinèa phase. 1: Pit 1 in Trench I/1974, 50-110 cm. 2, 6 and 8: Pit 4/2in silo-Trench 4/1988. 3: Pit 1 in Trench VIII/1979. 5: Pit 1 in Trench I/1974, 110-220 cm (Inv. no. 78.1.19). 7: Pit 2/1 in silo-Trench 2/1988. 9: Pit 1 inTrench I/1974, 130-150 cm (Inv. no. 78.1.20; P.84.957 (drawings by E. Starnini).

– 59

Fig. 28 - Szarvas, site 8/23. Reconstructed vessels and carinated bowls from silo-trenches of 1988. 1: Pit 2/1 (P.148.502). 2 and 5: Pit 3/3 (P.148.408,145.027). 3: (P.148.522). 4: Pit 4/3 (P.148.534). 6: Pit 3/8 (P.148.539). 7: Pit 3/2 (P.148.523).

60 –

Fig. 29 - Szarvas, site 8/23. Reconstructed carinated and rounded bowls partly of the Protovinèa phase (1, 3 and 5) from silo-trenches of 1988. 1, 3-7: Pit3/3. 2: Pit 2/2 (drawings by E. Starnini).

– 61

Fig. 30 - Szarvas, site 8/23. Reconstructed rounded bowl (1) and broken pedestals of the Protovinèa phase, partly with linear incised decoration (2-3 and 6)from silo-trenches of 1988. 1: Pit 3/2. 2: Pit 5/4. 3: Pit 5/6. 4-5: Pit 5/3. 6: Pit 4/2 (drawings by E. Starnini).

62 –

Fig. 31 - Szarvas, site 8/23. 1-11: Chipped stone artefacts from Pit 3/3 (see Appendix I).

– 63

Fig. 32 - Szarvas, site 8/23. 1-9: Chipped stone artefacts from Pit 3/3 (see Appendix I).

64 –

Phases Features Characteristic pottery findsSzakálhát Stray finds (fig. 143, 9 and 10)

ALP Stray finds

Early ALP82 -

Körös VI Pit 4/2, 1988 Körös, Protovinèa and Early ALP types

Körös V Pit 1 in Trench VIII/1979 Körös and Protovinèa types with few Early ALP

Körös IV Sacrificial Pit 3/3, 1988 Körös and Protovinèa types without Early ALP

Körös III Other features Classic Körös without white paint

Körös II Pits 1/1974 and VI/1975 Classic Körös with white and black paint

Körös I83 Lower part of Pit 1/1974 Early Körös with white and black paint

Table 7 - Relative chronology of the occupation phases at Szarvas 8/23.

Fig. 33 - Szarvas, site 8/23. 1-8: Chipped stone artefacts from Pit 4/2 (see Appendix I).

82. The earliest phase of the ALP is contemporaneous with the fifth settlement phase (typical pedestalled bowl fragments are represented in the assemblage)although the settlement features (i.e. the Szatmár and Gyoma 4/107 variants) are so far totally absent. 83. These phases refer to some Körös occupation periods and not to the entire Körös sequence.

– 65

Fig. 34 - Szarvas, site 8/23. 1-13: Chipped stone artefacts from Pit 4/2 (see Appendix I).

66 –

3. SZARVAS, SITE 8/8 (figs. 35-38)

3.1. SITE DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY OF THE RESEARCH

During the period of the early discoveries, in the first third of the XX century, it was E. Krecsmarik who busiedhimself with collecting antiquities and conducting small excavations at Szarvas and its surroundings. He devoted most of his work to the collection and excavation of graves and cemeteries of the Early Árpádian period. Nevertheless healso uncovered much Körös pottery and graves from the famous site of Szarvas-Szappanos i.e. Szarvas 8/8(KUTZIÁN, 1944: 28-30; MRT8, 1989: 380-383). The place of Szappanos halom (Szappanos mound or kurgan) lies on the left bank of the N-S Holocene bed of the River Körös (fig. 1, 2), which became a dead arm only after thecanalisation of the meandering watercourse of the Körös in the late XIX century84. A 2 m high elevation, perhaps alow kurgan85, once stood in the central part of the site, although the evidence and interpretation of Krecsmarik’sexcavations would contradict this suggestion. This elevation has been almost completely obliterated by differentworks up-to-now86, ploughing, and Krecsmarik’s excavations. Another low elevation lies in the northern part of the ca 200 m long Körös settlement, at a distance of 100-120 m from the former. This is the location of an ALP site.

The discovery of the site took place in 1911, when the owner of the land parcel opened an irregular trench,some 2 m wide, searching for river sand and black earth. He came upon an enormous ceramic vessel (of about30-40 gallons), together with large clay net-weights lying at a depth of some 1 m. He crashed the huge jar in many pieces and gave the net-weights, decorated characteristic with finger pinching, to Krecsmarik. At the same time,the owner found two skeletons: one of an adult and the other of a child (Graves A and B). Krecsmarik carried outhis first, one-day, excavation (June 29th, 1911) in the same place and contradictorily concluded that prehistoric finds could also be found in the basal core of, or below, the low hill. Nevertheless the remains of a trueprehistoric settlement were to be excavated in the body of the low mound itself, with crouched skeletons. Hewrote that according to the burnt wattle-and-daub fragments, a prehistoric habitation structure once stood onthe top of the mound (MRT8, 1989: 380). After its destruction, around the middle of the XX century, it wouldbe a speculation to suggest that the elevation had been that of a low Körös Culture tell-like settlement87.Krecsmarik also noticed that the planting of fruit trees heavily disturbed the uppermost layer(s).

His second excavation was carried out on July 8th-19th, 1912. During the first week, potsherds, fragments ofstone tools and net-weights were found, and also the mandible of a prehistoric human skeleton (Grave C). Theworks were continued in the next parcel, to the north. A trial trench was opened along the northern slope of themound. The grave of a tall, adult woman was discovered at a depth of 80 cm (Grave D), in a crouched position,lying on its left side, oriented towards E-W. It was found in a black soil layer mixed with loam, a characteristicfill of the Pit Grave kurgans, between a great number of potsherds and net-weights. The state of preservation ofthe bones also suggested a similar chronology: they were crumbling like so many Pit Grave skeletons. Moreoverthe skeleton was found in a frog-like position, with its knees and elbows more distant from each other than hands, legs or other parts. Such bodies were originally laid on their backs with their knees raised (i.e. in a vertical,crouched position). The legs probably fell sideward later or collapsed sideways outwards, giving shape to theunique frog-like position in which the bodies were found (MAKKAY, 2000d: 18 and 19 and figs. 1-3). There weresmall pieces of red ochre around skull D, also indicating a Pit Grave burial88. The chronology of Graves E and F,both containing crouched skeletons, is uncertain. Further discoveries are represented by a group of some 30net-weights and a huge storage jar with an applied barbotine decoration. Krecsmarik summarised the results ofhis two weeks excavation, writing that the prehistoric site in the Szappanos orchards demonstrated the existenceof a pure Neolithic culture and, according to the ceramic assemblage and the crouched burials, it resembled thefamous Neolithic sites of Óbessenyõ and Bukovapuszta (MRT8, 1989: 382, note 34)89.

84. The Szappanos meander was once the longest open meander of the Triple Körös, some 38 km long.85. The description given by E. Krecsmarik of the characteristics of the soil found in the body of the low elevation, suggests that it was a typical kurgan fill:black soil and clay with white traces of silt. Moreover, the mound profile, from its top down to the virgin soil, showed a continuous, homogeneous structurewithout any stratification. See MRT8 (1989: 381). 86. According to the information provided by the late Dr. J. Palov, once Director of the Szarvas Museum, the soil of the low hill was carried awaybefore1984. On one occasion, black earth was borrowed from the northern slope of the hill to reinforce the neighbouring Körös enbankment and also tobuild a house with sun dried mudbricks (MRT8, 1989: 380). 87. As it is well known, true tells were not present in the whole territory of the Carpathian Basin during the Early Neolithic and this site would be the onlyexception. See MAKKAY (1982b: 108-110 and also 1982a: 159). 88. The occurrence of red ochre, however, is also a characteristic of the Körös burials. See table in Appendix III.89. For the ’two’ sites, now in the Rumanian Banat, see KUTZIÁN (1944: 29 and 25). In effect, the two mentioned sites of Óbessenyõ and Bukovapuszta are thesame. It is located close to the spot where the world famous Early Medieval (Avar) gold treasure of Nagyszentmiklós was found in 1799 (BÁLINT, 2004).

– 67

Early Árpádian burials, and a great number of potsherds with incised geometric motifs were found duringthe third, 1913 campaign. The finds included sherds with plastic patterns, among which is the representation of a goat head, and broken figurines. There are no detailed descriptions of the fourth and fifth seasons, carried outin 1914 and 1915. After the First World War, the sixth and seventh seasons were carried out in 1926 and 1930,both in the area of the land parcels north of the low mound, where the Árpádian Graves I, J and K werediscovered90. Unfortunately, most of the excavated and other finds collected by Krecsmarik (thousands ofsherds and other material) did not survive the vicissitudes of the Second World War, and the depredations ofthe Soviet Red Army and its Hungarian allies. Nevertheless twenty-one pieces are stored in the collections ofthe Hungarian National Museum, plus a few finds in the Szarvas Museum and also in the study collection ofSzeged University. His selective publications report a few important discoveries, as for instance the fragmentof a small ring (arming or fingering?) made from a mammoth tusk (a unique piece, if it really was made of amammoth tusk, for any Körös assemblage) and fragmented stone bracelets (MRT8, 1989: 382). The scientific,and quasi-scientific, studies of E. Krecsmarik on the chronology and other Körös Culture problems represent aunique chapter of the history of the Hungarian archaeological scholarship91.

To sum up, during his excavations, Krecsmarik recovered a few Körös Culture crouched skeletons, i.e. part ofgraves A-F, J, K, and some sporadic human bones that indicate the presence of (disturbed) graves of the same period.Most probably, Graves 1 and 2 of my excavations were recovered just to the north of the burials of Krecsmarik.

As it is well known, land snail and freshwater molluscs are common to the Körös pits (KOSSE, 1979),where sometimes they occur en masse in well-defined layers, in several features, especially refuse pits92. E.Krecsmarik was a pioneer investigator of such finds and his discoveries turned out to be remains of Uniopictorum, Anodonta Cygnea, Helix pomatia L., Paludina vivipara L. and Planorbis corneus L.93.

The last pre-Topography, small-scale excavation was carried out by Gy. Gazdapusztai between October28th and November 10th, 1957. Its scope was to achieve a clear understanding of this long known site, withmeagre success. His 7x5.5 m trial trench was opened 50 m north of the low mound. Most of it lay in the area ofone of Krecsmarik’s former trenches: therefore Gazdapusztai came upon disturbed Körös remains. A smallpart of the excavated or collected finds of the Körös Culture went to the collections of the Szarvas Museum.The field notes of the excavator mention the recovery of two clay stamps, which, however, are not in theinventory and have been lost since then (MAKKAY, 1984: 56)94.

According to the results of the Topography fieldwalking, the Körös Culture surface finds were firstcollected in the southern part of the site, i.e. around the low mound, while sherds of the Szakálhát group andALP were mainly collected in the northern one, in the case of the ALP, and on the surface of the northernelevation, in the northernmost edge of the site.

3.1.1. The first season: November 1st-13th, 1974

Following the information provided by the owner (who was born in 1902 in the same house where he livesnow, i.e. in 1974, east of the low mound, and, as a child, was a witness of Krecsmarik’s excavations), theKrecsmarik squares or trial trenches did not extend to one of his narrow W-E land parcels. Trench I/1974 (9x3 m)was opened in this parcel in a N-S direction, along the northern slope of the low mound (fig. 35). After removing the uppermost, ploughed soil down to a depth of ca 30 cm, the first arbitrary layer was made between 30 and 50 cm. The compact black soil contained many potsherds and net-weights, especially in its southern edge, while animal boneswere extremely rare over the whole area. The shape of the net-weights is commonly cylindrical, which contrastswith those of Szarvas 8/23, where tomato-shaped weights were found in a great quantity. Another difference is thatthe fabric of the weights from Szarvas 23 is richer in organic (chaff) temper and highly fired.

90. MRT8 (1989: 382 reports them and the seventh and eighth seasons incorrectly).91. For some details see MAKKAY in MRT8 (1989: 383 and 384). For his suggestions concerning the typological and chronological relationships betweenthe Körös and Linear Pottery Cultures see volume 2 and below: AVK imports and imitations in the Körös assemblages (figs. 141 and 142).92. The major concentration of snails was found in one of the refuse pits of the site Deszk-Olajkút, excavated by O. Trogmayer and the author in 1965. 93. For comparable data, see the reports on the Endrõd 3/119 excavations below, sacrificial pit A1 in trench 7. See MAKKAY (1989a: fig. 5, with a minormistake at p. 244, mentioning Trench 6: the occurrence of Lymnea stagnalis, Planorbarius corneus and Discus ruderatus). 94. One of the two pieces might be identical to no. 304, at present in the collections of the Szentes Museum. After the death of Gy. Gazdapusztai, thethen director of the Szentes Museum, J. Csalog began studying his (i.e. Gazdapusztai’s) excavated material, and supposedly he took the piece withhim to Szentes. Another Körös stamp, most probably found at the site by Krecsmarik, was mentioned when the inventory of the archaeologicalcollection of the Szarvas Secondary School was compiled by E. Mérey-Kádár before 1956: “a pintadera carved from sandstone, with long conicalbody and a slightly concave face. face bears serrated edges like a crest. Height 2.6 cms, width 2 cms”. This would be the only stamp made of stone ofthe whole assemblage of the Körös and Starèevo Cultures (MAKKAY, 1984: 56).

68 –

The arbitrary layer between 60 and 90 cm was very poor. It yielded a few potsherds and animal bones,grouped together at the southern edge of the trench. The outlines of two narrow, slightly curved trenches wereobserved in this part: they both contained abundant Körös pottery, down to a depth of some 90 cm. Theirdetailed chronology and nature has remained unknown since then, although the undisturbed character of thispart of the trench, together with the fact that the first spit between 30 and 60 cm, contained undisturbed Körösdeposits, suggest that they belonged to an undefined, circular Körös construction. The traces of similar blackchannels were found, during the following November 1975 fieldwork season (fig. 36, 3) also in the southernpart of Trench III, cutting or bordering wattle-and-daub house remains. The lowest, sterile, arbitrary layer layat the top of the virgin soil, disturbed by many animal burrows. Its cleaning showed the outlines of fourpostholes (ns. 1-4) excavated into the virgin soil, to the depth of 165, 145, 138 and 115 cm respectively, fromthe surface. They date to the Körös period, although their function cannot be ascertained. There is only a slimchance that they belonged to a building represented by the four postholes.

Trench II (12x2 m) was opened in N-S direction, north of Trench I, at a distance of 7 m. The Körös findswere very abundant in the first arbitrary layer, between 30-60 cm of the northern third of the trench, associatedwith many net-weights and animal bones. Traces of one of Krecsmarik’s trial trenches were observed at thesouthern end of Trench II. The cleaning, at a depth of 60 cm, showed that the buried soil lay at a depth of 60-70cm in most of the trench, just above the virgin clay. The only exception was its northeastern corner, whichyielded a rich assemblage of pottery, net-weights, stone and bone implements, broken figurines, etc. This wasconsidered to be the southwestern edge of a refuse pit or layer, extending towards the northeast (fig. 37, 1 left).Later this ’pit’ revealed to be a characteristic refuse pit of the Sarmatian Migration period, penetrating into thegrey Körös layer, which contained many Körös Culture potsherds in a secondary position. The leg bones of acrouched skeleton, embedded into the grey Körös layer, were found during the cleaning of the NE corner, at adepth of 50-60 cm. An exquisite find of this layer were a few surprisingly thin, very well fired, body fragmentsof a large Körös storage jar with the plastic representation of a goat, roe or red deer (?) (fig. 38). The completeexcavation of the pit and Grave 1 (fig. 37, 3) was delayed to the following second season.

Fig. 35 - Szarvas, site 8/8. Location of Trenches I-V/1974-1975.

– 69

Fig. 36 - Szarvas, site 8/8. 1: Plan of Trenchs III-V with house rubble of fired clay, and the position of mass Grave 2. 2: Mass Grave 2. 3: Section A-B fromthe north. 4: Mass Grave 2 from the NW from a distance of 3.5 m (P.84.820). Detail of mass Grave 2 (P.84.823).

70 –

3.1.2. The second season: November 2nd-12th, 1975

Trench III (5x5 m) joined Trench II at its northeastern corner (fig. 37, 1). The uppermost ploughed soil was surprisingly thin, only 15-20 cm, and the first arbitrary layer was excavated between 15 and 43 cm. Finds ofthe Körös Culture were concentrated in the southwestern area of the trench, while sherds of the Szakálhátgroup were discovered in the opposite NE corner, in a layer above a Körös refuse pit (fig. 37, 1) belonging to aSzakálhát pit (Pit 2 in Trench III). The cleaning, at a depth of 43 cm, yielded a scatter of wattle-and-daubfragments in the western half of the trench (fig. 36, 6), probably the disturbed remains of a surface house.

Fig. 37 - Szarvas, site 8/8. 1: Plan of Trenchs II-V. with Grave 1 (D. 29.591). 2: The position of Grave 1 above the Sarmatian Pit 3 (D.29.590). 3: Grave 1,photograph taken from NNW (P.84.838 and D.29.592).

– 71

The arbitrary layer 2 was excavated between 43 and 68 cm, and the finds of two pottery concentrationswith Szakálhát and Körös material were collected separately (the Szakálhát finds were labelled “A”, while theKörös ones were not labelled). The burnt wattle-and-daub fragments turned out to be unstratified rubble,which could not be attributed to any well-defined construction. Only a few Körös finds were discoveredamongst the burnt fragments. The cleaning, at a depth of 70 cm, showed three different discolourations, i.e. pitoutlines, in the NE corner, by the western trench wall (near the area of grave 1 i.e. the Sarmatian pit), and alsonear the northern wall, this latter containing many Szakálhát net-weights (Pit 2 in Trench III). Later, aftercleaning at a depth of 100 cm, Pits 1 and 2 turned out to be parts of the same refuse pit. The Szakálhát depositswere responsible for the considerable disturbance of the earlier Körös remains.

The third arbitrary layer was made between 68-100 cm, and the outline of Trench III/Pit 1 (fig. 37, 1: thenortheastern corner) was clearly visible after cleaning. In the southernmost parts of the trench, the virgin layerwas discovered at a depth of some 100-105 cm. It yielded a few Körös Culture bone tools.

Grave 1: was discovered, in a Körös Culture layer, between Trenches II and III, in a very crouchedposition, lying on its left side (fig. 37, 1-3)95. The upper part of the skeleton (i.e. the skull and the humeri) wasat a depth of some 90 cm, while the lower bones were found 40 cm above it. The upper part of the skeleton wassunk in the filling of the Sarmatian Pit 3 (fig. 37, 2). The skull and the left humerus were disturbed by the samerefuse pit. The orientation was east-west. No grave goods were found, although red ochre paint was visible onthe left temple. According to the anthropological study, the skull is of a 53-59 years very robust old female,with archaic facial features (ultrahyperdolichocephalus and taxonomically leptomorphic).

The outlines of a discolouration containing the broken bones of a child were found in the SW corner ofTrench III and an extension called Trench IV (3x2 m) was opened to uncover it (fig. 36, 1). Burntwattle-and-daub fragments were also found here, in a position similar to those of Trench III. Thediscolouration traces, indicating Grave 2, were visible at a depth of some 100 cm. The arbitrary layers below80 cm did not yield any cultural remains.

Grave 2 was a multiple burial, with the bones of at least 7 individuals (fig. 36, 1, 2, 4 and 5). Most of them werefound in a disturbed, disarticulated position, as if the dead had been buried in two or three different occasions. Thesize of the large, squared, grave pit with rounded corners (1.5x1.2 m), however, suggests that it had been first

Fig. 38 - Szarvas, site 8/8. Plastic decorated vessel fragment with an animal representation (goat, red deer or roe deer?) from Trench III/Southwest. Inv. no. 78.32.5.

95. Fragments of a large Körös storage jar were found here, among which is a wall fragment decorated with finger pinching and the relief representation ofa goat, roe deer or red deer (fig. 38).

72 –

excavated for the burial of 2-3 individuals, most probably for the bones (including the skulls) of skeletons 3 (achild), 5 (another child) and 6 (with post cranial bones lying near to the west wall of the burial pit, partly in theiroriginal position). Their bones were mainly found in the lower layer of the burial pit, while the bones of the otherthree skeletons lay in the upper layer, also in a disturbed context. It can be assumed that the lower burials had beendisturbed during the deposition of the other individuals, although there are no reasons to explain why the overlyingbodies were also disturbed. A piece of red ochre, found between skulls 1 and 2, represents the only grave good.

The attribution of Grave 2 to the Körös Culture is supported by the detailed field notes, especially because an undisturbed layer of burnt wattle-and-daub was excavated 20-45 cm above the grave, both in Trench IV and alsoin the baulk between Trenches II and IV. It is worth noting that both the field notes and the anthropologicalanalyses mention six skulls. The results of the anthropological study of the skeletons (primarily the skulls) can be summarised as follows96: most of the post-cranial bones were broken and this circumstance made theiranthropological analysis difficult. They might belong to more than six individuals (ZOFFMANN, 1986: 44-47).• Grave 2, skull 1: a 10-12 years old child.• Skull 2: it belongs to a gracile, juvenile female of leptomorphic group,• Skull 3: a 8-9 years old child.• Skull 4: it belongs to a juvenile-adult male, represented by a robust mandible.• Skull 5: the gracile braincase of a female 23-40 years old, belonging to a leptomorphic group.• Skull 6: a 6-8 years old child.

The bones of an adult male, two females (23-40 years old and a juvenile) and 3 children 6-12 years old, might well represent a nuclear family in which an adult male was polyandrous. Another possibility is that this nuclear familyconsisted of the parents and four children (i.e. the three younger children plus the juvenile daughter). In such a case the whole family might be the victims of an epidemic. This is, of course, only a hypothesis that cannot be verified.

The black fill of one of Krecsmarik trenches was found in the SW corner of Trench IV (not marked in themap of fig. 36, 2). This identification was possible thanks to unique favourable circumstances. In fact, one ofhis trenches was excavated in 1930, in the land parcel of the owner J. Sovány97, the father of the present ownerof the same parcel, Mihály Sovány. Our Trench IV was opened in this area.

Trench V was a double extension, along both the eastern and northern sides of the northeastern corner ofTrench III, in order to reveal as much as possible of Pit 1, in Trench III. The southern part of this extension wasexcavated to a depth of only 60 cm, while its adjacent part, in the northern extension (labelled Pit 4, in the central ofthe eastern parts of the trench) was opened to a depth of 167 cm, i.e. to the virgin soil. It contained characteristicKörös refuse and was very rich in artefacts. Unfortunately, the scarcity of time prevented us from completing theexcavation of this large and rich rubbish pit. The probably undisturbed pit is very promising for further research atthe site, since it contained, for instance, white-on-red painted potsherds (MAKKAY, 1996: Pl. 9, 14).

The typological characteristics and general chronology of the excavated parts of the site will be discussed inthe next volume together with the description of its pottery assemblage. My preliminary impression is that it didnot contain pottery shapes characteristic of the Late Körös i.e. Protovinèa and Szatmár phases. Therefore theinternal chronology of the site can be reconstructed as follows (table 8):

Szakálhát Culture, Classic Phase: excavated finds

No deposits of the Late ALP-Early Szakálhát phases and transitional Furugy types

Presence of the ALP Classic Phase: surface finds

Gap between the Classic Körös Culture Phase and the Classic ALP(i.e. during the Protovinèa, Szatmár and Early ALP [Gyoma 107] phases)

Classic phase of the Körös Culture: main occupation phase

Presence of Early Körös Culture deposits (white-on-red paint): Pit 1 in Trenches III-V

Table 8 - Internal chronology of Szarvas 8/8.

96. Contrary to the skeletons excavated at Endrõd 3/119, Endrõd 3/6 and Szarvas 8/23, those discovered during the 1988 rescue operations at Szarvas8/23, Trench I-II (i.e. Grave 1), Endrõd 3/35, and also Szarvas 8/8, were deposited in the collections of the Hungarian National Museums and werestudied by Zs. ZOFFMANN (1986).97. See the short article by E. Krecsmarik in the local journal Békés Megyei Közlöny, 57: 59, July 23, 1930: 5.

– 73

4. ENDRÕD, SITE 3/6 (figs. 39-54)

4.1. SITE DESCRIPTION OF AND HISTORY OF THE RESEARCH

According to the Archaeological Topography (MRT8, 1989: 126-129), Endrõd 3/6 is called Kápolnahalom (i.e. Chapel Hill) because a Árpádian, very small church (4.5 m long and wide) was built on its top in the XI century AD (fig. 1, 4). At present it is totally destroyed after the 1975 rescue operations, together with thekurgan that lay below it (fig. 39, 1; MRT8, 1989: 126 and 127, figs. 6 and 7). Its first destruction was made in1241 when barbaric, Mongolian invaders emptied much of the Hungarian Plain, Transylvania and Pannoniaand most of their Hungarian villages and townships.

The surface finds collected between 1974 and 1978, have shown evidence of the following periods: Early(Körös) and Middle (ALP and Szakálhát) Neolithic refuse pits, sporadic Early and Middle Copper Age pottery(belonging to the period of a large subterranean house of the Early-Middle Copper Age with a few decoratedCorded Ware pottery of eastern type), a Late Copper Age burial mound or kurgan (the Early Árpádian Agechurch was built on its top), Late Bronze Age ceramic finds, Sarmatian and Late Avar Migration period as well as the church and the graves of the Arpadian age (both graves of a row-cemetery and ad sanctos burials). Originally, according to the surface finds, the Körös site occupied an area of some 200x200 m, on a low hill at the head of anold meander of the Körös River. The modern Körös River bed lies 3 km north of the site.

The present surface soil is brown loess. The southern part of the site was destroyed by a large, sand quarrypit (fig. 39, 1) and its Neolithic features were decimated by structures and graves of the above-mentioned laterperiods (MRT8 (1989: 126, map in fig. 6)98. As a result, the Körös period settlement structure will remainunknown, except for 10 or more refuse pits.

The first excavation was carried out by D. Jankovich in 1975. They revealed Árpádian graves and features,and also some finds of the late phase of the ALP Culture (MRT8, 1989: 126 and 127).

4.1.1. The short rescue operations of 1982, 1985 and 1986

The author carried a two days’ rescue excavation on February 22nd-24th, 1982, under adverse weatherconditions. Körös finds were discovered in the profile of a large sand quarry-pit excavated in 1978-1981 anddestroyed the central part of site Endrõd 6 (figs. 39, 1 and 40, 2, 3 and 5). The Körös finds were found in a largerefuse pit or thick layer, some 6 m long, as visible from its profile (Endrõd 6, Pit 1/1982, fig. 41, 4, the hard greylayer to the left of the black pit99). An unidentifiable part of the pit or layer had already been destroyed, and itsnorthern part was later excavated by the Békéscsaba Museum (fig. 40, 3). Due to these circumstances, theinterpretation of this feature (whether a pit or a layer) is uncertain.

During our work, the profile wall was cleaned and cut to a length of 3 m, and the archaeological deposit wasinvestigated by a 1 m cut (fig. 41, 1 and 2). The lowest, grey layer contained a rich Körös Culture potteryassemblage. It seemed to be the earliest Neolithic deposit of the site (fig. 42, 1-8). However, some of thepotsherds resemble late Körös (Protovinèa) types (fig. 42, 2), while others are characteristic of the classic Körös(fig. 42, 1, 5, 7 and 8) and the earliest ALP (Szatmár) phase (figs. 42, 3, 4 and 6 and 46, 6). This assemblage seems to be contemporaneous with the Western pit in Trench XVIII (see below). It is possible that both features wereparts of the same large Late Körös pit, while the Eastern pit between them was intrusive with finds of slightlylater characteristics (i.e. Latest Körös and Szatmár types without the presence of Protovinèa carinated shapes:fig. 46, 1, 4 and 5). This stratigraphic sequence is reinforced by the fact that the leg bones of Grave A, belongingto the Western pit, were cut by the digging of the Eastern pit (fig. 40, 3 and 4).

There were signs of intrusion in the eastern part of the grey layer or feature. The opening of a black pit wasobserved, at the bottom of the unploughed black soil, at a depth of some 73 cm from the surface. It contained an undisturbed ALP deposit (figs. 43 and 44) with Körös types found ’with’ ALP material because of a secondarymixing. Typologically, it is easy to separate these two assemblages. The fill of the greyish Körös pit, or layer,was very hard, while the filling of the black pit was similar to that of the ALP pits.100 The finds of the black pit,together with the pottery of an ALP refuse pit excavated by the author in 1986-1987 in Trench XXVIII (fig. 39,

98. The position of the sand pit in the map is wrong. A part of the modern sand pit lies south of the kurgan with the church on its top.99. The box reference numbers are: C6a+b = at the foot of the skeletons of Grave 1, 40-100 cm + the West corner of the pit = Trench I/1982, western end ofthe Körös pit. C7a+b = Trench I/1982. C8 = Trench I/1982. C9 = Trench I/70-100 cm. C10a+b+c+d+e = Trench I/1982, 100-120 cm. 100. Box reference number: C5a+b = Trench I/1982, black pit. For the characteristics of the AVK/ALP pits see my paper (MAKKAY, 1982a: 160 and 161).The main fill of the Körös pits is always loose, of greyish colour, with a considerable amount of ash and organic material. The ALP refuse and house pitsusually yield the same amount of pottery (as for instance the very rich pits from Szarvas 8/102 and Gyoma 4/107) although the fill itself is hard, almosttar-like and of black colour. This would imply that the climate was drier during the ALP period, a possibility supported by the fact that some sites also occurin lowerlying areas i.e. as low as 82.5 m a.s.l. in the Szarvas district.

74 –

Fig. 39 - Endrõd, site 3/6. 1: General map of the excavations. 2-3: Plan and photograph of the ALP pit in Trench XXVIII (P.135.220).

– 75

Fig. 40 - Endrõd, site 3/6. 1: Mass Grave 1/1982. 2: Place of the 1982 excavations with the mass Grave 2 (D.23.456). 3: Trench XVIII with the contours ofthe Western (w = ’Nyugati’) and Eastern (e = ’Keleti’) pits (D.23.456), with Grave ’A’, and the place of section A-A of the Western Pit on the northern wallof the Trench (see fig. 41, 1). 4: Grave ’A’. 5: Section A-B across the Western and Eastern Pits with the location of Grave ’A’.

76 –

Fig. 41 - Endrõd, site 3/6. 1: A-A section of the Western pit in Trench XVIII (D.24.827). 2: Plan of the 1982 excavations with the ’Black Pit’ and the massgrave. 3: A-B section of the 1982 February excavations. 4: The Western pit in the western part of Trench XVIII from the north (P.135.224).

– 77

Fig. 42 - Endrõd, site 3/6. Pottery of the late Körös Culture from 1982. 1: Near the foot bones of skeleton 1 of the mass grave, from a depth of 70-100 cm(P.119.483). 2: From a depth of 40-100 cm, near to the western edge of the Black pit (P.119.473). 3-4: From a depth of 70-100 cm, the grey layer(P.119.481). 5: Near to the foot bones of skeleton 1, from a depth of 40-100 cm. 6: At the western edge of the Black Pit (P.119.473). 7-8: Around the footbones of skeletons 1-2 of the mass grave from a depth of 70-100 cm in the grey layer (P.119.483). 9: profile of piece n. 7.

78 –

Fig. 43 - Endrõd, site 3/6. Characteristic vessel fragments of the Classical ALP from 1982, from a depth of 40-100 cm, the westernmost of the Black Pit,near to the foot bones of skeleton 1 of the mass grave (P.119.480).

– 79

Fig. 44 - Endrõd, site 3/6. Finds of the ALP from the 1982 excavations. 1, 4 and 8: The lowermost layer of the Black Pit (P.119.472 and 119.482). 2: Thewestern end of the Black Pit at the foot bones of skeleton 1 of the mass grave (P.119.479). 3, 5-7 and 10: From the Black Pit (P.119.482, 133.482). 9: TrenchI/1982, 100-120 cm (133.482).

80 –

Fig. 45 - Endrõd, site 3/6. Late Körös pottery fragments with Szatmár-like elements from Pit 4c in Trench VIII (drawings by E. Starnini).

– 81

Fig. 46 - Szarvas, site 8/23 and Endrõd, site 3/6. Pottery of Late Körös-Protovinèa and Szatmár character. 1, 4-5: Endrõd, site 3/6, the Eastern Pit in TrenchXVIII/70-90 cm. 2: Szarvas, site 8/23, Trench VI/1975, 30-60 cm (P.86.747). 3: Szarvas, site 8/23, Pit 2 in silo-Trench 4 (Pit 4/2; P.145.019). 6: Endrõd, site 3/6,Trench I/1982, from the deepest part of the grey layer, near to the bones of the mass grave. 7: Endrõd, site 3/6, Trench VII/100-120 cm (drawings by E. Starnini).

82 –

Fig. 47 - Endrõd, site 3/6. Characteristic vessel shapes, mostly carinated bowls of Protovinèa type from the Western Pit in Trench XVIII/100-130 cm (1-2,4-11) and 90-130 cm (3) (drawings by E. Starnini).

– 83

Fig. 48 - Endrõd, site 3/6. Finds of Late Körös-Szatmár character from the Western Pit in Trench XVIII/130-200 cm (1, 5-7), 85-110 cm (2), 100-130 cm(3-4, 8) (drawings by E. Starnini).

84 –

2 and 3, unpublished), can be attributed to the Classic phase of the ALP, which represents an independentsettlement phase (table 9).

Four human skeletons were recorded in the bottom layer of the light greyish, very hard fill, west of the blackALP pit, in a crouched position and partly excavated, or better hurriedly removed, in the freezing Februaryweather. The bodies were found in this level before the filling of the grey layer (or before the end of thedeposition of the grey fill into a pit) and therefore they belong to the Körös Culture. There were no contours ofany grave pit visible from above in the sand pit profile. We were able to excavate skeleton 1 completely, although the legs of the other three skeletons were below the unexcavated part of the pit. The photographs show them(especially skeleton 2) without leg bones (fig. 40, 1). The grave was excavated on September 14th-15th, 1982.

• Grave 1, skeleton 1: crouched skeleton of an adult, oriented towards the south, lying on its left side at a depth

of 142 cm. The left arm is bent in front of the face, while the right one is unnaturally strongly bent back, very

probably tied up. The skull was broken. The leg bones were probably cut by the black pit.

• Grave 1, skeleton 2: adult, prone burial, lying on its face, with a N-S orientation. The leg bones in a very

good state of preservation. The arms were bent in front of the face.

• Grave 1, skeleton 3: disturbed or disarticulated (?) skeleton of an adult, originally, probably E-W oriented,

lying on the left (?) side, above skeleton 4. Its cranial and postcranial bones were very strong; the braincase

bones being more than 1 cm thick101.

• Grave 1, skeleton 4: an adolescent or child in a contracted position, lying on its left side, N-S oriented.It seems that the skeletons 1-4 were deposited simultaneously as a multiple burial, without any grave goods.

Their contemporaneousness is further supported by the fact that all lay at, or around, a depth of 142 cm in thesame light grey fill of the Körös occupation debris, without traces of later disturbance.

Three adults and an adolescent were interred in Grave 1. Age and sex are provided in the report on the human bones (Appendix III). The bodies were thrown into this mass grave impiously, which means that the dead weresubject to an epidemic or plague. Another possibility is that they were killed during a conflict or an enemy attack.Particularly interesting are the parallels that can be extended to other Starèevo graveyards. At Mala Vrbica, 17skeletons were found in a mass grave (a group of people presumably died of an epidemic), while at Velesnica,one pit contained 1 male, 4 adult male skeletons and the bones of 2 children (MINICHREITER, 1999: 20)102.

After my short, 1982 excavation report, S. Bökönyi, the then director of the AI, told the staff of the BékéscsabaMuseum the recent discoveries made at the Endrõd sand pit. They carried out a rescue excavation in 1982, after theworks of February and September. A small area was opened adjoint to that investigated by the author. Here, twoKörös and one ALP refuse pits were brought to light103, most probably parts of the 1982 grey and black pits.According to the oral information from the then director of the Békéscsaba Museum, also a few skeletons wereuncovered, most probably belonging to the mass grave. The relative field notes and documentation, if any,concerning these discoveries and the material from the pits were not available for study to the present author.

The excavations at Endrõd 3/6 continued, on a large scale, in 1985, when my colleague D. Jankovich startedhis research programme at the Árpádian village and graves of the churchyard and ad sanctos cemetery of thesame period (JANKOVICH and KVASSAY, 1986). The circumference of the sand pit was investigated in a ca. 5 mwide strip, except for the area close to the 1982 excavation, where only the uppermost, ploughed surface layerwas removed and its investigation was postponed to the next 1986 campaign. However, the sand quarryingcontinued between 1982 and 1985, and there was no possibility to ascertain how wide was the sand pit areadestroyed during these three years (fig. 39, 1).

In 1985 the author began the excavation of a huge semi-subterranean house attributable to the transitionphase between the Middle and Late Copper Age Bodrogkeresztúr and Cernavoda III-Boleráz Cultures. Theexcavation of this 56 sq m feature was completed in 1986 (MAKKAY, 1986a).

101. The average parietal thickness of the human skulls is 6.5-7 mm.102. See also MAKKAY (2000b: 22, note 14) for the Körös Culture mass graves, with further literature, and PETER-RÖCHER (2002), with further literature onthe Neolithic mass graves. See also BANNER (1935: 102 and Abb. 1). Three crouched male skeletons were found in the deepest layer of the refuse pit G.11at a depth of 3 m, lying with their face down. 103. See the brief excavation report in Régészeti Füzetek, 1983, I (1): 36, Archaeological excavations in 1982, Budapest, 14, No. 20, with the misleadingcaption Gyomaendrõd-Oláh tanya, without referring to the correct site numbering of the Topography volume. Further details of this rescue operation haveremained unknown to me. The report is misleading because later we were able to record the approximate measures of the Békéscsaba trial trench and therewas not enough place there for two Körös refuse pits and a few graves.

– 85

4.1.2. September 16th-25th, 1985 and 1986 campaigns. The Middle/Late Copper Age house

The large-scale excavation carried out by D. Jankovich revealed also some prehistoric features part of whichbelonged to the Körös Culture. The 1985 season was mainly devoted to the exposure of the semi-subterraneanhouse in Trenches VI, VII, VIII and XIX with their Körös fill along the edges of the Copper Age house andoutside it to the west, in the western part of Trench VIII, and also east of the house in the unnumbered trenchbetween Trenches VI and XVIII (fig. 39, 1). The pottery from the house consisted of mixedBodrogkeresztúr-Cernavoda III/Boleráz material with sporadic Tiszapolgár Culture types (fig. 50). These latterwere (together with Körös and some ALP-fragments) in a secondary position. The house was excavated into thedeposits of these three earlier cultures and its deepest part lay below 250 cm. Its inner canals, large inner pits (madefor refuse or for inner posts?) and other structures, contained an enormous quantity of large mammal bones, mainlycattle (fig. 53, 4). An unknown part of these bones at present is missing from the AI and Békés County Museumscollections, although a preliminary rough estimate, made by S. Bökönyi on the site, showed that horse boneswere not represented. The surviving part of these bones was identified by I. Vörös (Appendix IV).

According to my interpretation, this semi-subterranean house can be attributed to the initial infiltration phase of the eastern steppe Pit Grave or Yamna Culture groups. The (almost) complete absence of horse bones is a veryimportant argument against the hypothesis according to which steppe horse breeding, nomadic groups occupiedthe central regions of the Carpathian Basin around the end of the Bodrogkeresztúr Culture104.

The feature (figs. 39, 1 and 49) was discovered and excavated in Trenches VI-VII-VIII (numbered from eastto west, VI being to the east, VII in the centre and Trench VIII covering the western part) and XIX (north ofTrenches VI-VII i.e. the area of the northernmost pit-house) during the 1985 (July and September) and 1986seasons (figs. 49-54). Trench XVIII was also excavated northeast of Trench VI. Unfortunately, the 1986 fieldnotes and drawings of the final recovery of this house, made by S. Bökönyi and M. Vicze (the latter was then inthe staff of the AI), are at present missing from the archives of the AI, and only the photos and the profile drawingmade by the present author during the last days of the campaign are available (figs. 51-54).

According to the surviving field records, from 1985 and 1986, the outlines of Pit 4/a (written also 4/A; notmarked on the map, because it is identical to a part of the pit-house of figs. 49 and 51, 2 left) were discovered inTrench VIII, together with sporadic Tiszapolgár Culture and also ALP potsherds in a secondary position,around the pit, at a depth of 65 cm and below. In the southern part, a Árpádian house was also recorded (House1), into the black fill of the Copper Age house. A characteristic rim fragment with corded decoration was found in a secondary position in the fill of this Árpádian house (fig. 50, 1) and, most probably, it had derived from thedeeper layers of the pit-house.

At a depth of some 95 cm (i.e. at the bottom of the next arbitrary layer), there was a yellow layer in Pit 4/a,which was first thought to be the virgin soil. Nevertheless, it was an intentionally deposited, ca 5 cm clay layer, probably a stamped floor with a layer of black soil below it, containing many organic remains in the presenceof a highly fired clay (called “black greasy horizon”). The inner part of the pit-house, in Trenches VI-VIII,consisted of a number of pit-like depressions containing a homogeneous black fill with alternate yellow levels(figs. 52, 2 and 53, 6). These depressions were in three N-S rows, separated by two parallel, raised banks orridges of the yellow virgin soil. A profile was taken in W-E direction, across Trench VI, which was laterextended to the whole cross-section of the pit-house in Trenches VI, VII and VIII. Unfortunately the draft ofthe drawing (fig. 52, 1) was not found amongst the field records, and only the profile along the baulkseparating Trenches VI and VII from Trench XIX can be published here (fig. 54, 1 and 2). It was made in thenorthernmost part of the pit-house, when only a few centimetres of the northern part of the house were to beexcavated (the left canal is not visible in the photograph and drawing of fig. 54, because the excavation of thepit-house was unfinished when these records were taken).

Pit 4c was excavated west of the pit-house (fig. 49). It yielded characteristic Earliest ALP = Szatmár typepottery and Körös finds (fig. 45), surprisingly without carinated shapes of the contemporary Protovinèa-phase, which are present in the other features associated with Szatmár finds: the grey layer of 1982 (Protovinèa: fig.42, 2; Szatmár: figs. 42, 3, 4, 6 and 46, 6), and the Western Pit in Trench XVIII (Protovinèa: figs. 47, 1-7 and 9;Szatmár: figs. 47, 11 and 48, 1, 2, 4 and 6). At the southwestern edge, or corner, of the pit-house105, a dense

104. For a detailed discussion of the Kurgan theory, as an unsuccessful attempt of the late M. Gimbutas to solve some questions of Indo-European origins,see A. HÄUSLER (2003) and also MAKKAY (1995; 1996b; 2002a). 105. The field note of July 18 th, 1985 wrongly mentions the southeastern edge or corner.

86 –

Fig. 49 - Endrõd, site 3/6. Plan of the Copper Age semisubterranean house in Trenches VI-VIII and XIX with Pit 4/c (D.23.523 and 67.954).

– 87

Fig. 50 - Endrõd, site 3/6. Copper Age sherds from the semisubterranean house in Trench VII/120-140 cm. 1: Corded ware. 2: Tiszapolgár Culture. 3:Bodrogkeresztúr Culture. 4: Cernavoda III-Boleráz phase (P.131.508-509) (drawings by E. Starnini).

88 –

Fig. 51 - Endrõd, site 3/6. Copper Age house in Trenches VI-VIII from the east (1), south (2) and north (3) (uninventorised photographs by the author).

– 89

Fig. 52 - Endrõd, site 3/6. Copper Age house in Trenches VI-VIII. 1: Section on the Northern wall of Trenches VI and VII (P.127.922). 2: Section on the fillof one inner pit (P.127.923).

90 –

Fig. 53 - Endrõd, site 3/6. Copper Age house in Trenches VI-VIII. 1-2: General view from the SW (P.131.564, 131.578). 3: Pit D in Trench XIX(P.131.566). 4: Pit in Trench VI, near to the eastern edge of the house, with concentration of animal bones in its lower part (P.131.560). 5: The western edgeof the Copper Age house taken from SE (P.131.567). 6: Section of an inner pit of the house taken from the south (P.131.576).

– 91

scatter of early ALP pottery was also found at a depth of 90-100 cm. These fragments belonged to the fill of Pit 4c at its outer edge, because the pit-house had cut this earlier Neolithic pit106.

Pit 4c contained much fragmented pottery and animal bones. According to the identifications by S.Bökönyi, bones of roe deer, boar, cattle, sheep and goat, domesticated pig and duck were found associatedwith obsidian and red flint blades and many fish scales107. Unfortunately these latter could not be found in thecollections of the AI or the responsible local museums of Békéscsaba and Szarvas.

Near the north section wall, between Trenches VI-VII and XIX (in the northern part of Trenches VI andVII), the remains of a simple clay floor were discovered with traces of a hearth (see fig. 49: yellow clay floor).

Fig. 54 - Endrõd, site 3/6. 1-2: Copper Age house in Trenches VI-VIII. 1: A-B section at the northernmost edge (redrawn by E. Starnini after the originaldraft by J. Makkay). 2: Detail of the northern end of the Copper Age house in Trenches VI-VII and XIX, with section A-B in fig. 54, 1 (P.131.558).

106. For its material see BRN C2a+b+c+d+e+f+g+h = Trench VIII/1985, Pit 4c.107. According to the unpublished field notes.

92 –

In the eastern part of the pit-house, another vessel fragment with a corded decoration (or a body fragment withbrushed decoration) was found (now lost). The field notes are unfortunately unclear concerning thecharacteristics of this sherd108. In the northeastern part of Trench VI, the corner of the pit-house was recordedat a depth of 80 cm (from the modern surface) into the yellow virgin soil.

The eastern edge of the house was found during following works, at the same depth. The excavationcontinued into the inner fill of the house. At the same time, four small postholes were discovered in itsnorth-western corner. They probably belonged to the construction of the house entrance (fig. 49).

The works were resumed between September 16th and 25th, 1985109. The inner fill of the house wasexcavated in arbitrary layers, first between 100 and 120, then down to 140 cm. A yellow virgin soil was foundin some places of the parallel yellow banks or ridges, while dry and very hard black soil in other deeper places(the above-mentioned internal canals) contained Cernavoda III-Boleraz potsherds together with (Late?)Bodrogkeresztúr fragments (fig. 50, 3 and 4), and occasionally also much earlier (i.e. Neolithic andTiszapolgár) ceramics (fig. 50, 2). For this reason, the animal bones from these mixed assemblages (Neolithicsherds were also found in a secondary position) were not collected. A great number of animal bones waslocated between 120 and 140 cm, in a brownish hard layer undoubtedly belonging to the house in the southernpart of Trenches VI and VII. The southern edge of the house was at a depth of 140 cm. The inner fill, however,continued to a greater depth in the central and northern part, and the fill between 165-200 cm (the nextarbitrary layer) contained the same dry, hard, black soil. In the northeastern part of Trench VII, there was aloose black fill with small sherds of Copper Age type and many animal, mainly cattle bones.

The arbitrary layer between 200 and 225 cm, was a black hard soil with many animal bones and a fewsherds of Late Copper Age type, while near the western wall, the yellow virgin soil had already been found.Thin (2-3 cm thick), yellow clay layers embedded in a compact black soil, were discovered here, mostprobably the remains of renewed clay floors and fireplaces, with a black ashy layer at their top in severalplaces, especially close to the northern section wall (fig. 54, 2).

The next arbitrary layer, between 225 and 250 cm, revealed the yellow virgin clay in most places. The cleaningshowed that the inner construction of the pit-house consisted of three canals in a north-northwest/south-southwestdirection, between the edges of the house, and two inner ridges, or banks, left from the virgin soil. The deepest partsof these canals continued below 250 cm, while the upper (top) parts of the inner ridges were recorded at a depthof 225 cm, or above. The above-mentioned fireplaces (near the northern section wall) were placed on the clayfloors that covered the canals, most probably supported by heavy beams (sporadic traces of which were found,among which are very thin, whitish, powdery layers). There were lenses of ash and charcoal above the easternand middle canals, near the section wall, deposited above thin yellow clay (floor) layers, while a red-burntfireplace was found above the western canal containing much ash and soot (fig. 54, 1, Hearth 1).

The finds, among which are animal bones, became more rare below 200 cm. The edges of the house becameclear on the eastern, western and northern sides (fig. 51 and also 53). Unfortunately, the sand pit before thebeginning of the excavations had largely destroyed its southernmost part. The house has an irregular, squaredshape, and its western edge was found below the baulk between Trenches VII and VIII. The internal canals widen at some places, and these pit-like inner depressions contain a very hard, dry, black fill, with many animal bones(fig. 53, 4) and a few, very fragmented sherds. They are of beehive-shape and their black fill showed yellowstripes, probably the remains of a renewed, sunken floors (figs. 52, 2 and 53, 6). Such pits occur in all the threecanals, although those of the eastern canal contained most of the animal bones (fig. 53, 4). Four large, circularpits (with a diameter of more than 1 m) were observed also at the southern edge of the house, out of the house pit.They probably were postholes belonging to a row of posts standing in front of the southern end wall of thebuilding. Their depths, however, did not reach that of the inner canals and their pits (postholes).

Unfortunately, the excavation of this pit-house could not be concluded in 1985 with additional work inTrench XVIII, and it was temporarily covered with a large, plastic sheet until the 1986 season.

The recovery of the house continued, and was finished in 1986, but, as mentioned above, there are no fielddocuments available. Contemporary to these additional works, I started the excavations at Endrõd 3/119 and,during my occasional visits to the nearby site Endrõd 3/6, I recorded some notes, took photographs and alsoprepared the draft of the section drawing seen on fig. 54, 1. Also Dr. M. Séfériades (Rennes) took part in the 1985excavations, and made the drawings of some corded decorated potsherds. Unfortunately these small fragments

108. Field note of July 22 nd, 1985.109. Field records by J. Makkay dated between September 16th and 25th (archives of the AI).

– 93

are presently missing from the archaeological material excavated and collected from this site. Dr. Séfériadès hasnot answered to my request of sending copies of his drawings of these important, imported corded ware sherds ofSteppic (probably pre-Yamna) type.

The unusual character of the building construction, its large dimensions and inner pits, yellow floors andfireplaces close to the supposed entrance at the north-western corner, indicate that it was, most probably, a largepit-house. The mixed character of its finds, especially the Cernavoda III-Boleráz potsherds and the fragments ofthe Late Bodrogkeresztúr Culture, date it to the first phase of the local Late Copper Age, which iscontemporaneous to the early appearance of the Pit (Yamna) graves in the Hungarian Plain, i.e. to the first burialfound in kurgan 6 at Kétegyháza (ECSEDY, 1979: 28-31 and Pls. 10-12). It is of particular importance that someceramic types, found below the body of the kurgan, although contemporaneous to the first grave, find parallels in the Late Bodrogkeresztúr period (i.e. Hunyadi-halom group) (ECSEDY, 1979: 30). This circumstance makes theoccurrence of corded ware fragments in the context of the Cernavoda-Boleráz types chronologically important.The house dates to the period of the first appearance of the Pit Grave (Yamna or Ochre grave) eastern groups andvery probably it represents a unique case.

The horse bones found at Kétegyháza, associated with Cernavoda-Boleráz III type material are the oldestevidence of (domesticated?) horse bones in Hungary (ECSEDY, 1979: 31). The analysis of the Endrõd 3/6 bonesmade by I. Vörös are summarised in Appendix IV.

Trench VIII yielded also a group of Körös potsherds in the central part of a shallow depression. Köröspottery was also found in Trenches VI-VII and XVII110.

4.1.3. The 20th -22nd August, 1986 season

During this short season, the 1982 trench and the supposed place of the 1982 Békéscsaba Museum trenchwere located and mapped (figs. 39 and 41). Trench XVIII was later opened in a neighbouring part of theundisturbed area. As mentioned above, the topmost, ploughed layer had already been removed to a depth of some 70 cm. Below 70 cm, its cleaning revealed the outlines of two differently coloured parts, called Eastern andWestern Pits (fig. 40, 3 and 5, marked with ’w’ and ’e’). A clear outline of the Western Pit, in Trench XVIII, wasobserved at a depth of some 80 cm, while the sherds to its east belonged to the Eastern pit, in Trench XVIII. Thebottom fill in the eastern part of the Eastern Pit, just above the virgin soil, was heavily burnt. It contained a fewSzatmár potsherds with typical early ALP decorative patterns (fig. 46, 1, 4 and 5), i.e. short and sharp incisionscovering part of the outer surface, associated with pinching. The collapsed remains of an oven, or plastered wall,were discovered in the western part of the Eastern pit.

The southernmost part of the Western Pit (a ca 1 m wide strip) was destroyed by the sand exploitation (andits eastern end was probably found in 1982: i.e. the area between the grey layer and the Western Pit). Its leftparts extended north and northwest of Trench XVIII. Its fill, between 70 and 110 cm, was a hard greyish soil(similar to the grey layer around the mass grave discovered in 1982) rich in pottery. In the layer 110-150 cmbelow, the potsherds became rare, in a dry, brownish-blackish loose soil. A ridge of the Western pit probablycut the north-western corner of the burial pit of Grave ’A’, while the Eastern Pit cut both the legs and the pelvicbone of skeleton 3 (fig. 40, 1), and its skull was disturbed during the preparation of the area, in 1985. Thechronological relationships between the Western Pit and grave ’A’ is known: it was buried during the use ofthe Western Pit somewhat later than its first utilisation as a refuse pit.

Grave ’A’ in Trench XVIII/1986 is a crouched, S-N oriented skeleton of an adult lying on its right side. Theright arm is bent back in front of the chest, while the left hand was placed on the left knee. No grave goods. For itssex and age, see Appendix III. The outline of the grave pit became clear after its cleaning. It was oblong withrounded corners, cut into the virgin soil to a depth of 17 cm. Its fill was dark with some yellow particles.

The excavation of the Western pit could not be completed during these two days. It was continued in 1987,in Trench XXXI (11x4 m), conjoining the north and west walls of Trench XVIII (not represented in the general map of fig. 40). The Western pit yielded Late Körös fragments (figs. 47, 8 and 10; 48, 3, 7 and 8) andProtovinèa vessel forms in the lowermost part of its deposits, between 165-170 cm, among which are stronglycarinated bowl fragments (fig. 47, 1-7 and 9) and sherds of storage jars with pinched decoration. Fragments ofSzatmár coarse ware were also found (fig. 48, 1, 4, 6 and 7: short incised sharp lines or, more rarely impressed

110. The box reference numbers are: C12a+b = Trench VII/1985, 130-165 cm. C13 = Trench VII/1985, 140-160 cm, the Eastern part. C14 = Trench VII/1985,225-250 cm, the Eastern part. C15a+b = Trench VII/1985, 165-200 cm. C16 = Trench VII/1985, Pit 5, 190-200 cm. C17 = Trench VII-VIII/old baulk, 0-100cm + Trench VII/West, 140-160 cm + Trench VIII/old baulk, 80-120 cm. C18 = Trench XVII/50-80 cm. C19 = Trench XVII/1985, 90-115 cm.

94 –

barbotine channels, sometimes arranged into a so-called wreath motif111), without any characteristic, incisedALP pottery. According to the field notes, the fill of the Western pit showed two distinct layers: 1) a 25-30 cmthick, hard, burnt layer, below 70-85 cm, containing many animal bones and characteristic Protovinèapotsherds, without any incised ALP sherd of Late Szatmár type; 2) the fill below 135 cm was loose, ofbrownish-yellowish colour, with less pottery, including Protovinèa types. Also the small portion of theEastern pit, in Trench XXXI, contained fragments of Late Körös-Szatmár bowls (fig. 46, 1, 4 and 5).

It is easy to understand why the wreath motif is not present in the Late Szatmár assemblages of the later ALPterritory (Mezõkövesd-Mocsolyás: KALICZ and KOÓS, 2000a), in the Late Körös assemblages of the north Körös region (Dévaványa-Barcéi kishalom: ORAVECZ, 1997; Öcsöd-Kiritó: RACZKY, 1988: figs. 5-9) and in thenorthern border zone of the Körös distribution area (Kõtelek-Huszsársarok: RACZKY, 1988: figs. 10-19)112.Mezõkövesd yielded finds of the latest, short Szatmár phase transitional towards the Classic ALP, while theKõtelek material from Pit 8 can be attributed to the same short, although culturally somewhat different,horizon113. Nevertheless I cannot accept the attribution of the Kõtelek Pit 8 finds to the beginning of the ALPMiddle Neolithic114. There is not one single published potsherd that shows the characteristic ALP incisedtechnology and decoration (RACZKY, 1983: figs. 12-20). There are, however, carinated shapes (RACZKY, 1983:fig. 18, 6), high pedestalled bowls with high and wide upper part (RACZKY, 1983: figs. 12, 3, 6-8; 13, 1, 2, 4 and5), obliquely incised, short and sharp lines (RACZKY, 1983: figs. 19, 6 and 21, 5), conical bowls with pinching,shouldered bowls with a low, vertical neck (RACZKY, 1983: figs. 18, 4 and 5 and 19, 3 and 4). These shapes anddecorations are very similar to the main characteristics of the Late Körös-Protovinèa-Szatmár assemblages fromEndrõd 6, without the presence of linear, incised ALP ware (similar to the assemblage of the lower part of theWestern Pit).

To conclude, the Dévaványa (fig. 1, 9) assemblage is very poor in vessel types, while that of Öcsöd cannot be classified from this point of view.

Phases Assemblages

Cernavoda-Boleráz-Yamna Late Copper Age House, Trenches VI-VIII, XIX

Bodrogkeresztúr Culture Settlement finds

Tiszapolgár Culture Settlement finds

Gap -

Tisza Culture The site was unsettled

Middle Szakálhát Phase Probably unsettled

Early Szakálhát Phase Sporadic finds before 1982

Late Alföld, Furugy Phase Sporadic finds before 1982

Classic Alföld, Phase Szarvas 102 Black pit of 1982, and the ALP pit in Trench XXVIII

Early Alföld, Phase Gyoma 107 Not represented yet

Late Körös+Szatmár Pit 4c in Trench VIII and Eastern Pit in Trench XVIII

Late Körös+Protovinèa+SzatmárGrey layer of 1982 and upper part of the Western Pit in Trench XVIII;

Grave A and Grave 1

Latest Classic Körös+Protovinèa(without Szatmár= Early ALP)

Some types from the grey layer of 1982, before the burials, and the lowerpart of the Western Pit

Classic Körös Not represented

Early Körös Not represented

Table 9 - Internal chronology of Endrõd 3/6.

111. For the wreath motif (or hanging triangles) see MAKKAY (1974: 146 and 148, and figs. 1, 2; 2, 3 [Furta-Csátó], 2, 4 [Nagyecsed-Péterzug] and 2, 5[Tiszaug-Tópart]).112. Dévaványa-Réhely cannot be taken into consideration from this point of view, because the publication does not contain any illustration (GOLDMAN,1991: 33-42). The material, however, very probably dates to a late Protovinèa phase of the Körös Culture, as the presence of the biconical, carinated vesselsshow together with (?) Early ALP (Szatmár) finds (p. 39). 113. The material from Pit 1, however, is represented by Classic Körös Culture types (RACZKY, 1983: figs. 5-7). The Kõtelek material, as far as I wasinformed consists of two assemblages (pit 1 of the Körös Culture and pit 8 of the Late Körös-Szatmár phase) which were collected after a heavy ploughingbefore the planting of an orchard.114. RACZKY (1983: 187 “a kõteleki 8. gödör leletanyagát kulturálisan…helyesebb az AVK 1. szakaszának nevezni, amely a Közép- és aFelsõ-Tiszavidéken a középsõ neolitikum kezdetét jelenti” = “the assemblage of pit 8 from Kõtelek can properly be called the first phase of the ALP, whichrepresents the beginning of the Middle Neolithic in the Middle and Upper Tisza region”).

– 95

5. ENDRÕD, SITE 3/35 (figs. 55-58)

5.1. SITE DESCRIPTION OF AND HISTORY OF THE RESEARCH

The site is located east of Endrõd 3/39, in the old vineyards of Endrõd village, along the southern bank of an E-Wold riverbed of the Körös (fig. 1, 8). It is a part of a row of small prehistoric (Late Neolithic and Tiszapolgár Culture)and later (Scythian and Sarmatian) settlements (MAKKAY in MRT8, 1989: trial excavations at Tiszapolgár sites 3/37and 3/44). Site 3/36 lies to its east (fig. 55, 1), where interesting Middle Neolithic painted pottery was found from boththe house debris and the small, cylindrical pits (MAKKAY, 1993a: 126, and fig. 1, 2-20)115. During the 1974 and 1975surveys a dense scatter of Körös and Linear decorated pottery (ALP and Szakálhát phases) was observed along theslope of the levee. According to this evidence, a trial excavation was opened between August 12th and 23rd, 1975.

5.1.1. Trial excavation: August 12th-23rd, 1975

Trench I (20x2 m) was opened in a W-E direction. The uppermost, ploughed layer of 0-20/30 cm (the latterdepth was measured at the NE corner) contained mixed pottery of Körös, Linear Pottery, Sarmatian andÁrpádian Age (fig. 56, 1). The first arbitrary layer, between 30 and 60 cm, yielded the remains of differentfeatures, mainly belonging to later periods: a circular, plastered surface, and the destroyed remains of a plasteredoven of the Middle Neolithic Linear Pottery (Szakálhát group; fig. 56, 1, II) and also the Árpádian Age.

At the southeastern corner of the trench, a greyish discolouration was observed both on the cleaned surface,at a depth of 60 cm, and again, at 85-90 cm, with finds of both the Körös and Linear Pottery Cultures. In thesecond arbitrary layer, however, i.e. between 30 and 60 cm, only Linear Pottery characteristic fragments wererecovered. To investigate this pit (previously called Pit 3 in Trench I) more closely, an extension was opened(Trench III; see fig. 56, 1 and 2). The arbitrary layers were excavated according to spits of 0-30, and again 30-60cm without a baulk. Below 60 cm, a section was made down to the virgin soil (fig. 56, 3). According to the fieldnotes and the drawing of the profile, the second spit between 30 and 60 cm, was continuous and containedexclusively sherds of the Szakálhát group. The next spit between 60-80 and/or 60-90 cm contained a mixedassemblage of Szakálhát and Late ALP ceramics and Körös fragments in a secondary position, deriving from thefill of the lower-lying Körös pit. The recurrence of ALP sherds in this Szakálhát layer with a mixed darker fillmight be due to the disturbance of the upper part of the ALP pit in the Szakálhát period. This ALP pit was locatedin the western part of Trench III (to a depth of 178 cm into the virgin soil: fig. 56, 2). Its excavation had cut thewestern edge of the Körös Pit III/3. The fill of the ALP pit was of brownish colour with yellow clay lumps, whilethat of the Körös one was greyish with much ash.

A skeleton of the Szakálhát group was found at the bottom of the Szakálhát layer at the top of the original fillof the Körös pit (fig. 56, 3). Its only grave good was a small, fragmented, characteristic, undecorated globularvessel of a dark colour (fig. 57, 3).

Grave 1 (Szakálhát group): a crouched skeleton lying on its left side, oriented towards east-west (fig. 57, 2and 4)116. The small, globular vessel mentioned above was found at the same depth (i.e. 85 cm) on the top of thesurface of the Körös fill and most probably it was a grave offering (fig. 57, 3).

The field notes emphasise that the finds from the western part of the deeper spits of the trench (disturbed bythe ALP pit) were collected separately. This mixed assemblage contains only Körös and ALP sherds without anySzakálhát pottery (two reconstructed ALP vessels: fig. 58, 1 and 2). The eastern part of the trench, below 85-90cm, yielded only typical Körös pottery at the same depth. These data confirm that the characteristic ALP materialof this pit dates to a period preceding the Early Szakálhát group, the pottery often associated with the late ALPfinds. Therefore, the painted pottery of Endrõd 3/36 (which lies in a distance of only ca 150 m: fig. 55, 1) iscontemporaneous with the very short period between the burial of Grave 1 and the pure (Classic) Szakálhát phase without any presence of ALP types. This attribution is further supported by the presence of Late ALP potsherdsin a context with this type of painted pottery at site 36, which does not show any close parallel with both thetypical ALP and Szakálhát assemblages117. Regarding the typological transition between the ALP and theSzakálhát phases, according to the evidence of Békésszentandrás-Furugy, see Appendix V.

115. The finds from the 1991 second trial excavation are still unpublished.116. The bones were lost in the collections of the Natural History Museum, Department of Anthropology, Budapest.117. MAKKAY (1993a: fig. 1, 7-9 and also the contemporaneous finds of Esztár type painting: fig. 1, 5).

96 –

Fig. 55 - Endrõd, sites 3/35 and 3/36. 1: Location of the sites 3/35 and 3/36 on a contour map (D.21.901). 2: Trenches I-III of the site Endrõd, no. 3/35 on theland parcel of the owner (D.20.870).

– 97

Fig. 56 - Endrõd, site 3/35. 1: Map of Trenches I-III with different features (D.10.871). 2: Plan of Trench III with Körös Culture and the ALP (AVK) pitsand Graves 1 and 2. 3: Section A-B of the Körös pit with Graves 1 and 2.

98 –

Fig. 57 - Endrõd, site 3/35. 1: Körös Pit 3 in Trench III from NNE with Grave 2 in the background and the ALP refuse pit to the right (P.84.813). 2 and 4:Grave 1 of the Szakálhát group, from the north (P.84.847). 3: Reconstructed bowl of the Szakálhát group, probably from Grave 1 (P.91.878, Inv. no.78.3.29). 5: Remains of a Szakálhát oven in Trench I/East, extension, 30-60 cm (P.91.878).

– 99

Fig. 58 - Endrõd, site 3/35. 1: Reconstructed bowl of the Classical ALP phase from the ALP pit, 100-120 cm (Inv.no. 78.3.26). 2: Characteristic high bowl ofthe ALP from the upper part of the ALP pit in Trench III/West, 60-80 cm (P. 84.849). 3: Reconstructed high necked jar of the Körös Culture from the Körös Pit3 in Trench III (Inv. no. 78.3.13; P.86.726). 4-5: Körös Culture Grave 2 found in Pit 3 in Trench III (P.84.815, taken from NNE) (drawings by E. Starnini).

100 –

The Körös pit below the Szakálhát layer (fig. 56, 2 and 3) was of relatively small dimensions, reaching a depth of231 cm. A greyish layer, between 80 and 105 cm, joined its eastern part. This might indicate that the pit was excavatedinto the Neolithic subsoil and virgin soil from some 70-80 cm. However, the original opening of the Körös pit waslater destroyed by Szakálhát activities. The pit fill was homogeneous with thin, ashy lenses. Around the edge of thepit, on its eastern side, the finds were undisturbed at a depth of some 70 cm118. Similar, undisturbed deposits, above the central part, were discovered only at a depth of some 100 cm. This situation can be interpreted in two different ways:1) during the period when of ALP people came to the site, a small depression was visible above the Körös pit, and thesoil was deposited in this depression to a depth of 1 m, during the AVK period, or 2) the complete Körös Culturevessel discovered at 70 cm of depth was not caught by the edge of the ALP pit or during ALP and Szakálhát activities.

A thick concentration of Körös Culture material was discovered in the central part of the arbitrary layersbetween 100-140 cm, mainly animal bones, between 100 and 120 cm, and potsherds between 120 and 140 cm.Below 145 cm, the finds were concentrated only in the central part of the pit, whose western wall, excavated intothe yellow clayey virgin soil, was almost vertical, between 80 and 230 cm. Between 119 and 149 cm, the bones of a child were found very close to the wall, surrounded by fragments of several large vessels (Grave 2; fig. 58, 4and 5). Parts of these vessels (one reconstructed high-necked jar119: fig. 58, 3) lay in an inclined layer leaningtowards the southern wall of the dome-shaped pit. They were probably deposited intentionally to cover the childburial. This assemblage might otherwise represent a pithos burial, although the age of the child (6-7 years:ZOFFMANN, 1986: 42) and the measure of the reconstructed necked jar precludes this latter possibility. There isno doubt that the child was buried in the freshly discarded refuse of the site, and was covered by potsherdsintentionally fragmented for that purpose. The pelvic bones of the skeleton were found at a depth of 150 cm.

Another Körös pit (Pit 6 in Trench III) was found in the NE corner of Trench III, but the absence of funds andtime made its excavation impossible.

Endrõd, site 3/35 Endrõd, site 3/36

- Surface-built house of the Bodrogkeresztúr Culture

Tisza Culture Gap

Classic Szakálhát Phase Gap

(Békésszentandrás-Furugy120 lower layer)

Early Szakálhát layer with latest AVK and Esztár sherds, in context of red anddark painted and black polished fine pottery characteristic only for this site

(MAKKAY, 1993a: fig. 1, 10-20)

Layer of the earliest Szakálhát phase and Grave 1 with lateAVK and painted pottery of Esztár style. Early Zseliz

imports121

No feature The emergence of the red and dark painted and black polished fine pottery

Pit of the Late Classic ALP (contemporaneous with Endrõd 42

containing Esztár and Transdanubian [Early Zseliz] imports122) No feature

Classic ALP = Szarvas 102 No feature

Gaps (Körös-Protovinèa and Gyoma, site 107) Gaps

Körös Pit 3 in Trench III/1975: Classic Körös Unsettled (MAKKAY in MRT8, 1989: 142)

Table 10 - Relative chronology of Endrõd 3/35 and 3/36.

It is not possible to confirm whether these short pottery phases of the ALP and Szakálhát were partlyoverlapping and contemporaneous, or followed each other diachronically in short phases. It is even difficult totell if such units represented a subsequent, uninterrupted sequence within these two neighbouring sites. Ifinterruptions occurred, the question emerges whether the original Classic ALP population of Endrõd 35 movedto Endrõd 36 or other people moved into the site. This question is further complicated by the finds from Endrõd3/42, lying 2 km to the west, with its Late Classic ALP assemblage containing also Esztár and Transdanubianimports (MAKKAY, 1992: Pl. 15, 3). The closed assemblage of Endrõd 42, however, did not yield any Szakálhátpottery. This is why it was most probably contemporaneous with the ALP pit deposit of Endrõd 35.

118. As, for instance, a complete Körös Culture bowl found at the depth of 70 cm (MAKKAY and STARNINI, forthcoming 2)119. For its close parallel see the specimen from Szarvas 8/56: fig. 118.120. Recently P. SÜMEGI (2003) discussed the paleoenvironmental problems of a Körös settlement in the area of Békésszentandrás-Furugy. He did notidentify it within the sites of the Topography volume (MRT8, 1989).121. Regarding the fragments of the Zseliz group of the Transdanubian Linear Pottery see MAKKAY (1992b: Pl. 15: 13 [from Endrõd 3/42], Pl. 16: 3[Endrõd 3/6, from the 1975 excavations of D. Jankovich], and also Pl. 16: 4-6 [from Endrõd 3/35]). Fragments of the Esztár group from Endrõd, 3/35:MAKKAY (1992b: Pl. 16, 1 and 2). 122. See note 167. Other fragments of black and red painted ware, characteristic only of site 3/36 (MAKKAY, 1992b: Pl. 15, 12 and 16, 7).

– 101

6. ENDRÕD, SITE 3/39 (figs. 59-70)

6.1. SITE DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY OF THE RESEARCH

The site (fig. 1, 6) was discovered in 1970-1971 when deep ploughing and soil loosening (MAKKAY, 1980: 209-210) affected the area and brought rich Körös pottery and also human bones of Sarmatian and Árpádianburials to the surface. The system of land use of the decades between 1950 and 1990 during which the wholearea was machine-cultivated by large collective farms (kolkhozes) for the production of grain (mostly wheatand maize123) and fodder-crops (especially lucerna = alfalfa), produced relatively uniform and good conditions (with the exception of the alfalfa) for surface survey. Scatters of coarse pottery and daub could be seen inisolated groups on the surface. This fact was mentioned by tractor-drivers to one teacher of the local school.Later on, groups of young students of the elementary school, escorted by their teachers, visited the site onsome occasions, collected pottery from several scatters, and occasionally made small trial pits to collect morefinds. These finds were kept in the store of the local school until 1975, when the Békéscsaba Museum acquiredthem. The archaeologist of the Museum Dr. Borbála Maráz visited the site in 1971. She recorded Körös pottery and also located four low kurgans lying partly in the area of the site and further to its west and south (MRT81989: Endrõd 3/122 and 3/118)124. There were human bones on the surface of the low kurgan mound lying onthe eastern part of the settlement. These latter belonged to the graves of the Sarmatian and Early Árpádiancemeteries, partly excavated during our campaigns (MRT8, 1989: 143)125.

During our 1975 surveys, the site was an alfalfa field not ideal for the recovery of surface finds. The site lies ona large low elevation surrounded by shallow depressions (sedimented old river beds or palaeochannels) and divided by a similar NW-SE channel (discovered during the excavations and called here as the internal depression: fig. 60,Trenches V and VIII) into two parts. The Early Árpádian cemetery was on the eastern ridge, east of this internalchannel or depression. This was the reason why this part of the Neolithic settlement was excavated (the onlyexception is Trench I lying in the western row of surface-built houses observed during the field walking). TrenchIV, however, was opened north of the north-western end of this internal depression (figs. 59 and 60).

A low kurgan was visible on the eastern ridge, while a farmhouse, not belonging to the collective farm,still stood on the northern part surrounded by a kitchen garden (the Katona farm: fig. 61, 1). This area wassuitable for our first trial trench (figs. 60; 62, 1 and 63).

Settlements of the Körös Culture show a variety of forms, the most common of which is the lineararrangement of houses and rubbish pit clusters on levees along river beds: the so-called shoreline or linearsettlements, when long, narrow sites, distributed along a palaeochannel represent successive movements of asmall number of household, in some cases one house (MAKKAY, 1979; 1982b). There are, however, a few largesettlements, which can be considered, nucleated villages (SHERRATT, 1983a: 157). The surface remains of thesesites usually concentrate in a circular or oval area. At site 39, the surface scatters were in two, parallel N-S rowson the two low ridges, on the western and eastern side of the central, inner depression or redeposited channel (fig. 60). The site belongs to the category of nucleated villages.

First, the area south of the farmhouse was field walked and settlement debris and pottery indicated three richfeatures. It was possible to carry out a small excavation at two of them (Trenches I and IV). The first trial trench wasopened in the undisturbed northern part of the western ridge lying near to, and partly, in the kitchen garden. Asmentioned already, deep ploughing and soil loosening did not affect this part of the site, around the private farmstead.

6.1.1. The first season: May 17th-30th, 1975

Trench I/1975 was a 10x4 rectangle (figs. 61, 4, 6 and 8 and 62, 1-4)126. Dense concentrations of brokenpotsherds were visible on the surface. First, the uppermost, ploughed loose soil was removed from the top of theundisturbed soil to a depth of some 20 cm, with the deeper furrows reaching 40 cm. After cleaning, the firstarbitrary layer was excavated between 20 and 40 cm, the second between 40 and 68 cm. A grid of five 2x4 sq mwas laid out for the separate collection of the rich ceramic content of the layer (labelled 1 to 5, from east to west).

123. Called kukorica, tengeri or more rarely törökbúza (i.e. Turkish wheat) in Hungarian.124. Joint Italian-Hungarian excavations were carried out at the latter site Paphalom.125. For the Sarmatian cemetery see B.M. SZÕKE and A. VADAY (1983). For the graves of the period of the Hungarian Conquest (fig. 62, 5 and 7) and theÁrpádian Age see MRT8 (1989) and FODOR (1996: 219). 126. The box reference numbers are B1a-f and B1g.

102 –

Discolourations in the eastern and southeastern parts show the presence of grave pits, which later turned out to beof Sarmatian and Early Árpádian (figs. 61, 5 and 7 and 62, 1).

In the eastern area, Trenches 1 and 2 yielded sporadic Körös pottery from these arbitrary layers, whileTrenches 3-5, to the west, gave a fill rich in vessel fragments and large burnt wattle-and-daub pieces, in anunburnt dark soil. Complete vessels and profiles of several pots (fig. 63, 1-7), in the presence of wall plasterfragments, show that they belong to the furniture of a surface built house partly destroyed by ploughing (fig. 62,1-4). The burnt plaster fragments at a depth of 68-70 cm, may have belonged to a structure, most probably adestroyed oven or a walled fireplace with an opening to the south (not represented in fig. 62, 1). The lower part ofthis structure was not plastered and only the walled floor was burnt red.

The cleaning of the southeastern parts of Trenches 1 and 2, revealed a discolouration at a depth of some 68cm, with a fill of lighter colour and many wall plaster fragments, while the surface of the western Trenches werebrownish. This latter was the area where the rich pottery assemblage was found between 20 and 68 cm.Continuing the work in spit 3 (68-98 cm), no pottery was found in the western areas. The brownish compact soilwas the Neolithic buried soil on the top of which House 1 in Trench I/1975127 was built (fig. 62, 1). The virgin,clayish soil made its appearance here in at a depth of some 98 cm.

Cleaning, to look for discolouration, at a depth of 98 cm, showed the contours of a rubbish pit (TrenchI/1975, Pit 1128) deepening into the yellow virgin clay subsoil, although most of it lay out of Trench I, to itssoutheast (figs. 61, 4 and 8 and 62, 1 and 4). In contrast to the western Trenches of the same depth, the fill oflighter ashy greyish colour of this pit contained many finds, mainly potsherds and animal bones. Below 68 cm the finds were separated from those of the layer of House 1.

One extension of 4x2 m was opened southeast of Trench I to uncover Pit 1 (Extension East). The finds werecollected separately, according to the spits between 40-60, 60-80 cm and below. The materials from these

Fig. 59 - Endrõd, site 3/39. General map of the 1975-1978 excavations with Trenches I-XXX.

127. The box reference numbers of Trench I/1975, House 1 are B1g, B2-9, B12, B16a; House 1 in the extension of Trench I is B16b. 128. Box reference numbers B11, B13-15 and B17-22.

– 103

respective depths were added to those from the other part of the pit, in Trench I. The deeper parts of this pitcontained thin-layered deposits of yellow and brownish clay, with alternate thin, white ashy layers occasionallyalternated with charcoal (fig. 62, 4). Animal bones were abundant in these deeper parts with a lower number ofpotsherds. At a depth of some 120 cm, there was a 50x60 cm burnt plaster layer, 5-6 cm thick, which overlaid thenorthern edge and the wall of the pit. Probably, the burning remains of a surface structure (oven or fireplace?)were thrown into this part of the pit. Another possibility is that a fireplace was made here because much ash andcharcoal was found near the plastered surface in the lower part of the pit.

Extension East was too small to reveal the whole pit, and Extension South was also laid out on a surface of6x2 m sq. It was excavated in spits identical to these of Extension East and also our observations were similar.We had a baulk wall between parts of the pit in Trench I and Extension South. After the excavation of the pit wedrew a profile of the baulk (fig. 62, 4).

The interpretation of the chronological relationship between House 1 and the pit was not an easy task,because the cleaning at a depth of 68 cm did not clearly show the pit outline. As a consequence, the stratigraphy

Fig. 60 - Endrõd, site 3/39. Map of the 1975-1978 excavations with places of houses and refuse pits.

104 –

Fig. 61 - Endrõd, site 3/39. Details of the 1975-1978 excavations. 1: Work in progress in Trench V, taken from the south, with the Katona farmstead in theback (P.94.349). 2: Excavation of Pit Grave 15 (P.89.592). 3: View of Trenches VI and VII from the south (P.89.613). 4: Pit in Trench I taken from the West (P.84.802). Grave 1 from the period of the Hungarian Conquest from the north (P.84.798). 6: Section C-D in Pit 1 in Trench IV, from the north (P.89.427).7: Grave 1 from the NNE (P.84.799). 8: Pit 1 in Trench I from the north (P.84.803-84.804).

– 105

Fig. 62 - Endrõd, site 3/39. 1: House 1 in Trench I, plan with section E-F, and sections A-B and C-D of the ditch around Sarmatian Grave 4, and locations ofGrave 1 (Hungarian Conquest Period) and Graves 2-3 (Sarmatian). 2-3: Sections A-B and C-D. 4: Section E-F of House 1 and Pit 1.

106 –

Fig. 63 - Endrõd, site 3/39. Vessels from House 1 (1-4 and 6) and Pit 1 (5 and 7) in Trench I (P.84.981, P84.984, D.14.852-14.853). Inventory numbers:78.4.21 (1), 78.4.10 (2), 78.4.23 (3), 78.4.25 (4), 78.4.5 (5), 78.4.24 (6), 78.4.2 (7).

– 107

Fig. 64 - Endrõd, site 3/39. 1: Plan of Pit 1 in Trench IV (D.11.673). 2: Section A-B from the north with a circular hole in the foreground (P.89.442). 3:Section A-B of Pit 1 in Trench IV.

108 –

Fig. 65 - Endrõd, site 3/39. 1: Trench III, the vessel of the stone hoard from the west (P.89.460). 2: The same from the south (P.89.457). 3: The same fromthe west (P.89.462). 4: Male clay figurine. Surface find from the area of Pit 1 in Trench IV, 1976 (P.109.574; Inv. no. 78.34.4). 5: Horn of consecration, partof a bull statue from Trench VII, 30-60 cm (D.13.233).

– 109

Fig. 66 - Endrõd, site 3/39. Pit 1 in Trench VIII/1977 (= Pit 1 in Trenches VIII-X, XIV and XIX). 1: Plan. 2: Section A-B. 3: Section C-D.

110 –

Fig. 67 - Endrõd, site 3/39 and 3/119. 1: Reconstructed clay figurine from Pit 1 in Trench VIII/1977. The upper part from Trench X/90-110 cm, the lowerpart from Trench XIX/South (drawing by K. Árpás). 2: White painted figurine of a dog from Endrõd, site 3/119, Trench 44/Southwest, 70-90 cm. 3: Head of a lion figurine from Endrõd, site 3/119, Pit 9 in Trench 19 (see fig. 83).

– 111

of the southeastern part of Trench I was puzzling. During the fieldworks I considered the possibility that the pithad been excavated during the building of the house to extract clay for making its wattle-and-daub plasteredwalls and was left open for a while during the life of the house. Another possibility is that the pit was opened laterand cut into the southeastern part of the house. Both these possibilities are to be left open. This is why the potteryof the two assemblages were kept separately while the cultural material collected above of 68 cm was mixed,except for the vessels reconstructed from conjoining fragments found in the western grid squares of Trench I,belonging to House 1. A detailed pottery analysis demonstrates the chronological difference between the two

Fig. 68 - Endrõd, site 3/39. 1: Pit 1 in Trench VIII/1977 from the northeast (P.93.981). 2: House 1 in Trench X/extension, with net-weights from the south(P.94.019). 3: Detail of the net-weights (drawings by E. Starnini).

112 –

Fig. 69 - Endrõd, site 3/39. 1: Oven in Trench VIII at the bottom of the internal depression, section. 2: House 1 in Trench XX (P.99.138). The arrow marksthe place of the pit of the foundation ritual. 3: House in Trench XX, fragment of a flat clay weight (D.14.930). 4: Reconstructed vessel from the house inTrench XX. 5: Reconstructed vessel no. 12 from the house in Trench XX (Inv. no. 78.159.16).

– 113

Fig. 70 - Endrõd, site 3/39. 1-2: Pit 1 in Trench XVIII, plan (D.14.205) and section D-D (D.14.206). 3-4: Reconstructed vessels found in Pit 1 in TrenchXVIII/90-120 cm. Inv. nos. 78.159.12 (right) and 78.159.8 (left).

114 –

Fig. 71 - Endrõd, site 3/39. 1-5: House 1 in Trench XX. 1: The foundation deposit, section. 2: The foundation deposit (P.99.110a). 3-4: Reconstructedvessels from the foundation deposit. Inv. nos. 79.6.1024 (3) and 78.159.13 (4). 5: Reconstructed vessel 6 from the house (Inv. no. 78.159.16).

– 115

assemblages. The house layer had been damaged by later grave pits, even though they did not make theinterpretation of the internal sequence difficult, and their fill did not contain any potsherd.

The cleaning of the pit showed that its eastern part was 115 cm deep, while its western side 195 cm. Potsherdsand animal bones were abundant in the deeper layers of the western half, among which were a few fine bone tools.

The sterile layer below the buried soil was found beneath the house at a depth of some 90 cm. More thoroughcleaning did not reveal the contours of any posthole or other feature. It is to be mentioned that the limited extensionof Trench I did not permit the complete excavation of this house (fig. 62, 1). It was, most probably surface-built andthe postholes (if any) excavated into the buried, black surface soil, deposited above the virgin clay during the EarlyHolocene (MAKKAY, 1999b). Its contours became distinct between 40 and 74 cm, marked by a loose, brown soilwith many yellow, unburnt plaster fragments. This layer contained a great number of reconstructed vessels.

Fig. 72 - Endrõd, site 3/39. 1-2: Pit 1 in Trench XXX, plan and section (D.14.207).

116 –

6.1.2. The second season: September 16th-24th, 1976

After the first season, the fertile soil of the entire land parcel, south of the Katona farmstead, owned by theKolkhoz, was loosened and ploughed.

During the field walking, 8-9 very thick scatters of surface-built houses, and/or refuse pits were found, with arich greyish fill lying on the western and eastern side of the internal depression. Trench II/1976 was laid out aboveone of these greyish marks, east of Trench I/1975. It was 13 m long and 3 m wide (fig. 60). The first spit, between 20 and 40 cm, was a dry, lumpy soil. It contained very few Körös fragments, compared with the richness of the surfacescatter. The arbitrary layer between 40/50-70 cm was a layer different from the preceding one. It was compact,yellowish and clayey, with red-burnt patches and also a great number of large, red burnt plaster fragments at its top.The layer above was ashy, dark greyish, while the layer below was greyish subsoil. The yellow clay between themwas considered the unburnt clay of walls and floor of a Körös house built on the surface (House 1 in Trench III infig. 60), while the red burnt fragments, very probably belonged to its roof and wall construction.

In order to discover this house, we made a 6.5x4 m extension (Trench III/1976) joining the southern wall ofTrench II. Nevertheless, it was impossible to recognise the house layer because the deep soil loosening hadhighly damaged it. The fallen debris of this house contained very few Körös finds probably because itsinhabitants (probably a household farm occupied by a single family) emptied it when they moved away.

The arbitrary layer between 70-90 cm was an almost sterile deposit of yellowish-brownish soil, damaged bymany animal burrows, with no visible features such as postholes.

In the centre of Trench III, there were larger plaster fragments in a pile between 50-65 cm. They were mostprobably wall fragments of a domed oven outside the perimeter of the house, destroyed by soil loosening129. Alarge ash pit belonging to this oven was found 75 and 100 cm to its southeast.

The most remarkable find of this season was an almost complete vessel in the same eastern corner of TrenchIII at a depth of 60-70 cm, containing a hoard of chipped stone artefacts (fig. 65, 1-3). The hoard was publishedby KACZANOWSKA et al. (1981). The circumstances of its discovery are briefly described here.

As mentioned already, Trenches II-III/1976 yielded part of House 1 in Trench III (fig. 60) made of yellowclay and timber on the upper surface of the Neolithic soil. According to its location, the hoard belonged to theinhabitants of this building. Nevertheless it did not. The house was most probably abandoned without burningand, consequently, the remains of the walls, floor and probably also the roof, formed an unfired, compact yellowclay layer with occasional burnt wattle-and-daub fragments. At the eastern corner of this house, the debris wascomposed of the above-mentioned collapsed oven (or fireplace) associated with the house, which lay at the samelevel outside it. Heavy clay weights were discovered amongst the stones of this oven, most probably hung on theouter wall to dry or storage (see the similar position of the clay net-weights in Trench X/extension around thewestern end of House 1 in Trench X: fig. 68, 1 and 2). An ash pit was found slightly below, east of the open-airhearth. It presumably contained the old ashes from the hearth. The vessel with the flint hoard was discovered afew cms deeper than the house, close to the eastern part of this pit (fig. 65, 1-3) in a loose, greyish, ashy layer. The rim of the small, globular jar, with a low cylindrical neck, which contained 101 flakes of honey-coloured flint,had been intentionally chipped off. A knob or a handle had been broken off from its body. The opening wascovered with a lid obtained from the base of a large container. The vessel had been deposited (hidden) in astanding position after the abandonment of the house, because a 25-30 cm thick humus layer covered this part ofthe site, and the pit with the hoard had been most probably excavated through this layer (KACZANOWSKA et al.,1981: 105-117, figs. 1-10; MAKKAY, 1999a: fig. 2).

Concerning the chronology of the hoard: if the house can be referred to the Classic (or Middle) Körös Culture,the vessel might belong to a slightly later period of the same phase, which is not characterised from a typologicalpoint of view. The pottery assemblage from the house is represented by Körös types. Since the hoard vessel is of atype which is common throughout the whole sequence of the culture, it is not possible to date it more precisely thanto the Classic (Middle) phase. For the technical and cultural conclusions see KACZANOWSKA et al. (1981: 116).

Pit 1, in Trench III/1976, was discovered within the house debris. It is of a much later period, after theabandonment of the house, and contained the skull of a dog. Its cultural attribution is still undefined. It isprobably to be attributed to the Scythian period. Pit 2, in Trench II/1976, was found near the northern wall of thetrench. It contained a complete two-handled, wheel-thrown vessel of probably Sarmatian period.

129. The box reference numbers of Trenches II-III are: B23a+b = Trench II/1976, 0-70 cm. B24a+b+c = Trench II/1976, West, above the house in TrenchesII-III + Trench III/1976, above the house, 20-50 cm. B25a+b = Trench III/1976, East, 50-70 cm, fill of the house in Trenches II-III. B26 = Trench III/1976,West, 50-70 cm, fill of the house in Trenches II-III. B27 = extension of Trench III/1976, E-W, 0-90 cm. B28a+b = extension of house in Trench III, fill ofthe house in Trenches II-III.

– 117

Trench IV/1976 was opened in the kitchen garden of the Katona farmstead, between Trench I and thefarmhouse to its north (fig. 64, 1-3). It measured 10x3.5 m. Before World War Two, the ploughed soil of this areawas used to erect a low elevation where to build the farmhouse, as a result of which a shallow depression, of lightgreyish colour, was still visible with very rich Körös Culture surface remains. Nevertheless, as mentioned above,this garden was never affected by deep soil loosening. The field walking led to the discovery of two fragments offlat stone axes and one complete clay figurine representing an old man: a unique find within the Körösassemblages that demonstrates the richness and variety of the Körös plastic art (fig. 65, 4). They all belong to thefill of the lower-lying pit (MAKKAY, 1993: 73, fig. 3, 3 with note 12).

A 10 cm surface layer was removed by shovel, and the first arbitrary layer was excavated between 10 and 40cm. It contained many potsherds, and belonged to the ploughed soil. After cleaning and deepening into the nextarbitrary layer, between 40 and 70 cm, the western and central part of the trench revealed a compact yellow layerof unburnt house plaster, very similar to the house debris of Trenches I-II-III at the same depth. Also in this casethe yellow layer contained potsherds grouped into wider or smaller, circular depressions. One of them containedlarge fragments of a large container decorated with coarse channelled barbotine (so-called ‘Schlickwurf’).Fragments of the same vessel were also found in the first arbitrary layer and on the surface. They probablybelonged to a large storage jar, similar to those deposited in the outer zones of the Körös settlements as part ofsacrificial deposits130. The large container was placed in a narrow pit, or depression, in which we observed tracesof firing between the pit wall and the vessel. Nevertheless, the outer vessel walls did not show any trace ofburning. In the southeastern corner of the trench, large, burnt plaster fragments were discovered, among whichwas a large specimen with the impression of a large wooden beam. Here, the outline of a pit with a greyish fillwas observed in the uppermost part of Pit 1. The greyish-yellowish virgin soil was found at some 70 cm of depth,disturbed by many animal burrows in other parts of the trench. Here the house was also built on the Neolithicsurface, although the original Early Holocene grey layer was absent.

The outlines of two pits were recognised after cleaning at a depth of some 40 cm. The fill of Pit 2 contained a recent refuse in a loose ashy soil, while Pit 1, in the south-southeastern part of Trench IV, yielded many finds, potsherds and other Körös Culture remains (fig. 64, 1-3). In the next arbitrary layer, between 40 and 70 cm,this rich pit fill continued. Small, sooty deposits containing many land snails were discovered in the greyNeolithic subsoil, in the northeastern corner. The finds from Pit 1 were collected separately, according to thearbitrary layers, from the depth of 40 cm downwards. Its fill, between 40 and 70 cm, was composed of a light,loose grey soil with much ash and burnt remains.

The cleaning at a depth of 70 cm showed the outline of the pit, which extended beyond both the eastern andsouthern trench walls (fig. 64, 1). Before continuing the excavation, we opened two extensions in that direction (2x4m southwards, and 1.2x1.2 m eastwards). After removing the uppermost 40 cm thick ploughed layer, finds of the nextlayer were collected as belonging to Pit 1. The potsherds between 40 and 50 cm were found in a compact, blackish,thin layer, which had developed as the uppermost fill of Pit 1. Its finds were undoubtedly part of the pit assemblage.

The next 10 cm thick loose layer, not represented in the profile drawing of fig. 64, 3, had a light, yellowishcolour with much ash and burnt remains, corresponding to the house layer found outside the pit, in the northwestern part of the trench. It was interpreted as the backfill of the pit, during or soon after the life of a nearby house.

From this depth downwards, we started to collect small fishbones very carefully, firstly from the thin, ashylayers and deposits where they were abundant together with many freshwater molluscs131. A fragment of a smallclay figurine was found in the arbitrary layer below 50 cm, and its adjoining part was deeper in the fill.

Below the depth of 70 cm we continued to work only in the part of the pit in Trench IV to prepare a profilebetween this part and the southern extension (fig. 64, 2 and 3). We removed the layers according to theircharacteristics, and the next was a grey ashy fill between 70 and 110 cm in the centre of the pit. It was a rich, thickdeposit, which did not extend to the walls of the pit. At the latter place it was deposited on the top of a more humid and yellow fill, around the whole perimeter of the pit wall. Finds (sherds and animal bones) were abundant in theashy layer and a few were found in the yellowish fill. Between 110 and 130, the humid fill also yielded manyremains. However, their number systematically dropped compared to the upper layers. The pit suddenlytightened below 130 cm and continued to deep in its central part. Its fill was very humid and compact with muchcharcoal and soot, mixed with poorly fired, yellow plaster fragments. Thin ashy layers were present in this part of

130. MAKKAY (1992: 123, note 4). Already J. Banner had noticed at the site Hódmezõvásárhely-Vata tanya, that single large vessels were found in astanding position and in a unique intact state of preservation. For a full list of such intentionally deposited large containers see MAKKAY (2005a). 131. Hundreds or thousands of these fish bones were given to S. Bökönyi for identification, but he unfortunately lost all of them. Respective fieldnotescontain the detailed description of the collecting of these small fish bones.

118 –

the fill, alternating with thin layers of soot and charcoal, with burnt clay plastering at their top. We recorded threeof these short-term fireplaces at a depth between 70 and 130 cm, with a diameter of some 70 cm.

Below 130 cm, two small and deep depressions were found in the pit excavated throughout the yellow clayvirgin soil: one circular and one oblong. Their fill was similar to that of the layer above them. Half of the wall ofone of them was lined with large pottery fragments, like tiling, although this slip did not extend down to thebottom surface (fig. 64, 3 bottom)132. No traces of fire or burning was recorded here and, from this point of view,this central depression was different from a similar one discovered at Endrõd 3/119, Trench 7, with a fill ofundoubted sacrificial character (figs. 75, 1 and 77, bottom)133. The oblong depression contained large burntwattle-and-daub fragments, which had been probably parts of the house wall, oven or fireplace. Unfortunatelythe 6-7 large fragments did not conjoin and it was not possible to reconstruct their original shape and structure.They were thrown here, probably after the deliberate destruction of the structure.

After drawing the profile of the northern side of the baulk (fig. 64, 2 and 3) we removed it and continued theexcavation of the southern part of the pit in the extension. A leg of a very large, seated clay figurine was found inthe baulk, at a depth of 120 and 130 cm. Fragments of 3-4 different clay figurines were discovered in its closevicinity, suggesting that fragments of probably intentionally destroyed small statuettes were deposited in thispart of the refuse pit. They were found in the deepest part of the fill on the virgin loess deposit.

The southernmost part of the pit extended beyond the southern wall of the southern extension. It wasimpossible to open it because of the short time at our disposal. At the same time, in the southeastern corner of theeastern extension, the trench wall was heavily burnt due to the presence of a complete, domed oven, whose floorlay below 70 cm. Its inner part was filled with ash. Unfortunately there was no possibility to excavate it and itsremains, covered by a plastic sheet, are still waiting to be resumed.

6.1.3. The third season: October 22nd-29th, 1976

This campaign was directed by B. M. Szõke. Its scope was to collect more information about the two cemeteries,i.e. the early Sarmatian and the X-XI centuries AD Early Árpádian graveyard. Trenches V-VII134 were excavated, andTrench V joined the eastern wall of Trench I/1974 with a baulk of 1 m (figs. 59 and 60). The Körös pottery was mainly found in the western part of this trench, along a stretch 19 m long and 3 m wide. The vessel fragments probablybelonged to a refuse pit, independent from Pit 1, in Trench I/1975. Its outline, to the west, was quite clear, while theeastern edge remained uncertain down to the depth of 130 cm. The 1977 excavations in this area yielded a very poorpottery assemblage and its deepest part reached 140 cm. In the central and eastern part, a black fill occupied the wholetrench. The deepening of this thick fill coincided with the internal depression between two rows of Körös housesalready described in the general part above, and also below (see the description of Trenches VIII and XIX; fig. 60,Trench V). According to Szõke’s field notes the unnumbered Körös pit contained a rich pottery and animal boneassemblage. His field notes, however, mention only one Körös pit in Trench V, while its material was grouped intofour pits (1-4) as shown by our box reference numbers135.

Trenches VI (20x3 m) and VII (15x3 m) were opened in a N-S direction at the top of the low kurgansoutheast of the farmhouse, near a dirt road along an irrigation canal. There was a 50 cm wide baulk between their junctions. The extension of the excavation was carried out according to the suggestion of the excavator, becauseboth the Sarmatian and Árpádian groups preferred to place their burials on low elevations (i.e. kurgans).

Concerning the Körös finds, except for the sporadic occurrence of pottery and wattle-and-daub fragments, arich concentration of material was recognised in the southern end of Trench VII. It yielded very characteristicsherds among which are large pieces of fired clay that lay below a compact, continuous yellow layer (probablythe partly unburnt house debris above an earlier refuse pit). This question remained unanswered because theexcavation ended without completing the recovery of these features. The clearance made in 1978, showed that an accumulation of house debris (i.e. large burnt wattle-and-daub fragments), which belonged to a Körös Culturesurface-built, burnt house, very much affected by deep soil loosening, was present in this part, east of Trenches

132. For a close parallel of this practise see Endrõd 3/119, the description of sacrificial Pit A5. This part of the sacrificial Pit A5 or Pit 12, however, showedtraces of heavy burning.133. Sacrificial Pit A1 (MAKKAY, 1992: the general map and p. 131; 1987: 144 and 145, figs. 5 and 6. See also below). For the parallels of these internal pitsoccasionally lined with fragments of large vessels see Pit 1 in Trench XVIII below (fig. 70, 2), and also the fragments of a reconstructed large bowl inposthole 2 in Trench 34 and in Pit 12 in Trench 33 at Endrõd, 3/119: fig. 99, 2. See also Endrõd 3/39, Pit 1 in Trench IV: fig. 64, 3.134. I later changed the original Arabic numbers of the trenches into Roman numerals.135. B36 = Trench V/1976, arbitrary layers 1-2. B37a+b+c = Trench V/1976, western part + baulk, 75+95 cm. B38a+b = Trench V1976, black soil in the eastand middle part of Trench B39 = Trench V/1976, West, Western Pit, 95-120 cm. B40 = Trench V/1976, above Pit 1. B41a+b = Trench V/1976, Pit 1. B42 =Trench V/1976, Pit 2. B43a+b+c+d+e+f = Trench V/1976, Pit 3. B44 = Trench V/1976, Pit 4. For a detailed description of their finds see volume 2.

– 119

VI and VII. This accumulation was identical to that of House 1 in Trench X/1977, i.e. its easternmost corner inTrench XIII (fig. 60). The remains of this house were also found at the junction of Trenches VI and VII, where,according to the field notes “large wattle-and-daub fragments were to be seen lying in a regular row on the top of the Neolithic subsoil, very probably belonging to a Körös house”. Finally the eastern strip of Trench VI wasexcavated down to the virgin soil to retrieve a section of the kurgan.

Grave 15 was the central grave of the Late Copper Age Pit-Grave Culture kurgan (fig. 61, 2). It was disturbed by grave robbers, probably in Sarmatian times, and the only grave good found was a pierced animal tooth(MRT8, 1989: 144 and fig. 10, 4 and 5).

The excavation was stopped at this point and the trenches were kept open, hoping to continue the workduring the next year.

6.1.4. The fourth season: September 6th-23rd, 1977

As already mentioned, in 1976the local Kolkhoz made a deep soil loosening in a large plot of land, south ofthe kitchen garden of the Katona farmhouse. This work damaged many graves, mainly of the Arpadian period,which lay close to the present surface. As a consequence, human bones were visible all over the surface,especially in the area of the low kurgan. With the financial support of the Central Offices of the Academy and theBékés County Museum, a three-week rescue operation was carried out, whose main scope was the excavation ofTrenches VIII-XIV/1977 and the recovery of the Sarmatian and Early Árpádian Graves 17-81.

Trench VIII/1977 (25x3 m) was opened conjoining the northern end of Trench VI. The first arbitrary layerwas excavated below the loose, ploughed, humic soil, between 60-80/85 cm. It was an irregular, compact,yellowish-greyish layer, at the top of the virgin clay, with the contours of the grave pits. The dark grey humuscontinued to a depth of 50-75 cm in the northern part of Trench VIII. The original perimeter of the kurgan, i.e. the circular ditch or depression around it, was found here, filled with a grey soil derived from the uppermostploughing. Another probable reason for the formation of this depression was the above-mentioned, internalcanal. The evidence recorded during the excavation of Trenches IX and XIX supported this view.

After cleaning at a depth of some 70 cm, the outline of the easternmost part of a large Körös pit (TrenchVIII/1977, Pit 1136) was observed on the surface of the yellow, compact soil with many animal burrows. A smallpart of it had already been discovered in the northern edge of Trench VI/1976, although it had not beenrecognised before. Fortunately only a small grave of a child (Grave 18) was cut into its uppermost fill, and itslayers were left undisturbed.

To define the extension of Pit 1, Trench IX (25x3 m, reaching the width of 3.5 m, at the northern edge) wasopened 6 m west of Trench VIII, at a distance of 6 m (Trench XIX was opened in between in 1978).

Abundant Körös finds, mainly potsherds, were brought to light in the southern part of Trench VIII, in arbitrarylayers 50-70 cm, 70-90 cm, and also in 90-110 cm. The two upper layers were composed of a greyish, loose fill,extending over other parts of the trench, while the arbitrary layer 90-110 cm belonged to the brownish fill of the refusepit and contained much ash. The cleaning of the surface of the virgin yellow clay, at some 120 cm, clearly showed theoutline of the pit. The arbitrary layers between 90 and 110 and 110-120/130 cm yielded a rich pottery assemblage.

Below this depth, we continued to work only in the fill of Pit 1. It became obvious that a small part of it,formerly separated as Pit 2 in Trench VIII/1977, was only a shallow depression of Pit 1, with more ash. It waslocated near Grave 26, along the western wall of Trench VIII, which contained Körös finds. The ashy layerextended to the southernmore parts of the trench. It was 90 cm thick, at its southern edge. It probably lay near anunexcavated oven built on the Neolithic surface. The fill below 120 cm was different. It was of brownish colourbetween 120 and 150 cm, with a compact brown layer containing few finds beneath it (fig. 66, 2 and 3).

After removing the disturbed, uppermost soil of Trench IX to a depth of some 60 cm, the first arbitrary layerbetween 60 and 90 cm contained an undisturbed, compact, black soil, within most of the trench, while agrey-yellowish fill was found, at a depth of 50-55 cm, at its northernmost edge, with many animal burrows. The rich fillof Pit 1 was found in a grey, ashy layer, below the black humus. It continued below and became wider towards the north,i.e. the black inner depression, where its surface lay at a depth of 110 cm, 7 m from the southern edge of Trench IX.

136. Unfortunately the first section of this pit was uncovered in 1976, in Trench VI, while some other parts were excavated during the 1978 season. As a resultits material was collected under different trench numbers. During the post-excavation restauration works, different labels (i.e. Pit 1 in Trenches VI, VIII, IX, X,XIV and XIX) were unified as Trench VIII/1977, Pit 1, always referring to the exact location of the finds in the different trenches. The box reference numbersare as follows: B48a-h, B53a-c, B54a-h, B56a-c, B59a-b, B60, B61a-b, B64, B65a-b, B66a-b, B67, B68a-b, B69, B78a-f, B79a-k, B85a-h, B87a-i, B88a-t,B89a-f, and B93a-h. This was the largest and richest pit amongst all the features excavated during my Körös campaigns.

120 –

The uppermost 10-15 cm of this greyish, ashy layer was very hard, compact and partly burnt in some places.It yielded many vessel fragments and three stamp-seals, at a depth of 123-130 cm. These three pieces were foundvery close to each other in this rubbish pit, perhaps associated with the surface built house excavated in TrenchXX/1978 (MAKKAY, 1984: 20, 53-55).

The black fill outside Pit 1, in the central and northern parts of Trench IX, yielded exclusively sporadic Körösfinds between 50 and 80 cm. Only its western half was excavated, which was deeper in a smaller area 9.5 m long.Red, burnt plaster fragments were found between 130 and 155 cm, together with fragments of several large ceramiccontainers and many net-weights. The burnt wall plaster fragments belonged to a domed oven built on the Neolithic yellow clay surface, at the bottom of the inner depression (fig. 69, 1). This surface was covered by a very thin, dark,Neolithic subsoil. The oven wall was built directly on the top of the yellow clay virgin soil, and was heavily burnt.The inner surface of the 7-8 cm wide plastered wall of the oven was smoothed while the outer was rough. 3 largenet-weights were found in the oven, and 7 complete specimens just south of it. The top of the oven lay at a depth of147 cm, covered by the compact, hard, black fill of the later erosional deposit. The black deposit contained manyKörös sherds in a secondary position, brought here by erosion. An extension might have been opened here torecover the whole construction, but the area between two rows of houses, seemed very promising for furtherexcavations because of the presence of well preserved Early Neolithic constructions. The excavated evidence fromthis part of the depression, suggests that it was part of a river meander, closed before the Early Neolithic, because itssedimentation process was still active during the Körös times. It was similar to the meander of the pre-NeolithicKondoros River at Szarvas 8/23, although this latter was not closed when the site was settled (see above). Thedepression continues towards the north and another part of it was discovered in Trench V (fig. 60).

During the further work, Trench X (21x3 m) was opened west of Trench VI. Deeper arbitrary layers, containingcultural remains, were excavated parallel to those in Trench IX, especially the fill of the large Pit 1 in Trench VIII.

Fragments similar to the above-mentioned large wattle-and-daub specimens, first noticed in Trench VI, were foundalso here. They lay at the top of the brownish subsoil, between 55-60 cm, and were 34-40 cm wide and 35-40 cm thick.They were distributed over an area 1 m wide near Trench VI, although their layer continued towards the south and northin a 15-30 cm wide yellow clay strip. Amongst the wattle-and-daub fragments, there were large pieces of large jars withhuman and animal plastic representations. The burnt wattle-and-daub fragments and the yellow deposit at the southernedge of Trench X and the adjoining parts of Trenches VI and VII, belonged to the same Körös Culture surface-builthouse, called House 1 in Trench X (figs. 60 and 68, 2 and 3). It was very disturbed by deep soil loosening137. Parts of thehouse, which lay out of Trenches VI, VII and X (west of Trench X), were later excavated in two western extensions (fig.60, near Trench X, squares unnumbered on the map: see the net-weights cluster). A profile of the eastern wall of TrenchX shows that the house was built on the top of the Neolithic subsoil, at a depth of some 70-100 cm. The bottom layer ofthe kurgan, above the stratified house rubble, was found at a depth of 100 cm.

The destruction layer of the house consisted of burnt wattle-and-daub fragments, on the southern part, andunburnt yellow clay at the other edge, deposited above the Neolithic surface without a plastered house floor (ithad either a trampled earth floor or simply a rammed down soil). A thin, burnt layer subdivided this yellow claydeposit into two horizontal strips, perhaps representing the renewal of the house. The surface of the light brownsubsoil showed that the house was placed on a small elevation, which had been levelled. The sherds amongst thewattle-and-daub fragments were heavily burnt. This circumstance suggests that at least the southern edge of thehouse (a southern room?) had been destroyed by a heavy fire. The upper part of the house debris was disturbed by soil loosening. A body sherd of a storage jar shows a plastic representation of a woman.

As mentioned above, an extension was made west of the southern end of Trench X in order to recover thewestern part of House 1. During the cleaning, a long, sinuous row of net-weights (at least 88 complete pieces ofvery different typology) was found at the westernmost edge of House l, lying outside the area, covered withwattle-and-daub fragments (fig. 68, 2 and 3). They might represent the remains of a complete fishing net kept closeto the wall of the house or hung on the wall for drying. A complete specimen of Szarvas type balancing net-weightwas found amongst them. The Szarvas specimen shows that it was bound to the strong lower string of a dragnet (fig. 68, 3)138. Further fragments of large, relief decorated ceramic containers were also found. Nevertheless, during thepost-excavation restoration works, we were unable to reconstruct most of the vessel shapes (for the only exceptionsee MAKKAY and STARNINI, forthcoming 2, fig. 240, 1, the reconstruction drawn by E. Starnini)139.

137. Box reference numbers B70a+b+c+d+e = Trench X/1977, House 1 + extension, and also B77.138. MAKKAY in MRT8 (1989: 481 and note 12, and Pl. 3, 6a-b and 7). The site where the piece was discovered is unknown, perhaps Szarvas 8/8. See alsoMAKKAY (2001c: first cover and 8, with note 3).139. The reason of the unsuccesfull attempts to reconstruct these containers was that parts of them were sent by S. Bökönyi to Szarvas Museum, during therestoration works. See PB, no. 119, now in the collections of Szarvas Museum.

– 121

Trench XIII was opened east of the adjoining ends of Trenches VI and VII, to locate the eastern edge of House 1in Trench X. A few more relief-decorated sherds were found in the easternmost corner of the house, in Trench XIII.Outside the house, a greyish, ashy fill was observed at a depth of 60 cm, although this area remained unexcavated.

Trench XII was opened east of Trench VIII and parallel to it, while Trench XIV was south of Trench XIX, atthe southern end of Trench IX (most of Pit 1 in Trench VIII/1977 lay in the southern part of Trench XIX,excavated in 1978). Trench XII did not yield any Körös feature except for a number of fragments of large Köröscontainers, which were found in the grey subsoil in its northern part. They did not seem to belong to any context,although a very fine, white, powdery deposit covered both their surfaces. On the other hand, there were furtherfragments of large containers (partly with relief decoration) in the southern part of Trench XIV, very probablybelonging to the contents of House 1 in Trench X, once kept outside the house. They were found on the same grey subsoil, which served as a platform for building the house.

The remains of Pit 1 in Trench VIII/1977 were found in the northeastern part of the trench. As alreadyobserved, an ashy fill was found between 60 and 100 cm. It contained a very rich pottery assemblage and animalbones. The fill consisted of a loose brown soil below the ashy layer, with much less cultural remains. The deepestpart of this pit most probably lay below the l m wide baulk between Trenches X and XIV. Unfortunately this partof the site remained unexcavated because of the huge pile of backfill deposited on it.

The area between Trenches VIII and IX was prepared for further excavation to carry out the following season (Trench XIX) and the uppermost ploughed soil was removed with a bulldozer. All the subsoil below the blacklayer contained Körös Culture potsherds.

In Trench XI, the Neolithic remains were very much affected by later grave pits. The excavation of the fill of Pit 1, in Trenches IX and X, was conducted in arbitrary layers below 80, 100 and

again 130 cm. The pit was cut into the Neolithic brown subsoil, some 50 cm thick, with its opening at some 80 cm of depth140. Parts of the pit below 130 cm were cut into the yellow loess subsoil. The deepest part of the pit, in TrenchX, was 272 cm deep, and the fill of this depression was identical to that of the lowermost layer: a grey soil withmuch ash and small charcoal pieces. The head of a clay statuette was found close to the northern edge of Trench X,at a depth of 90-110 cm, and two fragments of the lower part of the same, beautifully decorated figurine, werediscovered in an adjoining part of Trench XIX (southern end) during the 1978 campaign (MAKKAY, 1993: figs. 1and 2, 1a-d; 1998: fig. 16) (fig. 67, 1). The small, steatopygous, figurines of the Körös Culture very rarely aredecorated with incised patterns: in this case they represent bird wings. This magnificent female representation wasmisinterpreted by M. GIMBUTAS (1989: 231, fig. 358) as a phallic figurine141.

The profile drawings of Pit 1, on the western baulk wall, in Trench IX (from the east: not represented here),Trench XIX (western wall, seen from the east: Section D-C, fig. 66, 3) and along the eastern wall of Trench VIII(Section A-B taken from the west: fig. 66, 2) can be summarised as follows:a. The deepest layer was found in the lower part of the pit, down to the virgin clay. It had a brownish, compact

fill, with a few finds in its lowermost part, at various depths (deepest point at 272 cm in Trench X). b. It was followed by a greyish, ashy layer of variable thickness between 70 and 120/130 cm, with traces of

burning, also on the palaeosurface outside the pit. It contained much pottery.c. A some 20 cm thick, black colluvial layer coming from erosion of the kurgan. d. A ca 60 cm thick, uppermost ploughed layer heavily disturbed by soil loosening.

Trench XI/1977 (21x6 m) was opened 6 m east of Trench VIII. Trench XII, covering the whole area betweenTrenches VIII and XI, was opened later.

6.1.5. The fifth season: September 4th-29th, 1978

A continuous row of three long Trenches XV (20x3 m), XVI (25x3 m) and XVII (20x3 m) was opened northof Trenches II-III/1976. The northwestern corner of Trench II lay at the junction of Trenches XV and XVI. Thepresence of Körös finds was very scarce, with the exception of fragments of a large Körös container in TrenchXV near grave 82142. The vessel was originally deposited upside down together with other Körös sherds, animalbones and burnt wattle-and-daub fragments, but the soil loosening disturbed the highest parts, i.e. the base and

140. This depth is due to kurgan covering the Neolithic deposits.141. According to this author this figurine has a phallic head with lower part shaped like testicles. The correct spelling of the site is Endrõd-Szujókereszt, and her reference to my 1985 paper at p. 362 (Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology, vol. 3) is incorrect: such a paper does not exist at all. 142. The box reference number is B106 = Trench XVI/1977, the small pit near Grave 88.

122 –

the lower walls of the vessel. It was probably a large storage jar of a type frequently deposited outside the village,or in temporarily uninhabited settlements, which also occur as parts of sacrificial deposits (foundation sacrifices,primitiae offerings, sacrificial pits, etc.) inside the settlement features (MAKKAY, 1992: 123 and 124).

Another Körös structure was discovered in Trench XV, at the distance of 3-3.5 m from grave 88. A greyish fill with many sherds, at a depth of spit 30-60 cm suggested the presence of a Körös refuse pit. Its length, in thetrench, was some 8 m. The cleaning, at a depth of 90 cm, showed the outline of Körös Pit 1, in TrenchXVIII/1978 (fig. 70, 1-4)143.

Thanks to an extension, opened north of Trench XV (Trench XVIII/1978: 6x6 m), it was possible to excavatethis pit. The first arbitrary layer, between 30 and 60 cm above it, was loose, with much ash. It yielded a rich potteryassemblage, with large burnt wattle-and-daub fragments accumulated along the northern wall of the trench,extending further north outside it. It was impossible to clean the ash surface at 60 cm, where a complete antler axewas found during its scraping (MAKKAY, 1990a: 51 and Abb. 19, 4, wrongly attributed to Pit 1 in Trench XVI).

At this depth, the trench was subdivided into two parts: West and East. The western part was excavated in order to draw its profile above and inside the pit (fig. 72, 2). The field notes and drawings show an accumulated greyish,ashy fill below the disturbed plough soil, with white, thin levels of ash in the southern part of the pit, and largewattle-and-daub fragments in and above its northern part, probably belonging to the debris of a surface house northof this unexcavated pit. A compact, brown, clayey level, almost without finds, was recovered below the ashy fill. Acircular, shallow depressions in the northern part, into the virgin clay, contained a thin, black deposit (of soot?) atits bottom and lower wall144. A rich pottery assemblage was found in the grey, ashy layer, mainly in those partsrepresented in the profile (fig. 70, 2 and 3). The small, northernmost part of this pit extended further to the north,outside Trench XVIII. It was left unexcavated. The pit assemblage yielded Classic Körös characteristic vessels,and a few Late Körös pieces, a fragment of a typical, carinated, Protovinèa low bowl, associated with a finechannelled fragment and a fluted decorated vessel (MAKKAY, 1990: 120, and Pl. 1, 16 and 4, 9 and 13).

Other Körös Culture features and find scatters from Trenches XV-XVII seem irrelevant compared withother features. For example, the sporadic occurrence of Körös pottery in the greyish subsoil between 30 and 90 cm, especially in the western part of Trench XVII145.

Trench XIX (25x6 m) was opened between Trenches VIII and IX/1977. It was excavated in two sections:first East and then West. As mentioned above, the disturbed uppermost 60 cm had already been removed in1977. A black deposit was observed in the northern part of the trench, while the greyish fill of Pit 1, in TrenchVIII/1977, was noticed in its central and southern parts, with a rich ceramic and faunal assemblage. This areawas excavated in arbitrary layers of 60-90, 90-120 and 120-150 cm. Most of the large pit was in Trench XIXand only its peripherical parts extended into the neighbouring trenches.

The squared Pit 2 was discovered in the northern part of Trench XIX. It contained a black soil, with greyearth lumps and fragments of poorly fired Körös vessels. Its chronology is uncertain, although it was probablymuch later than the Early Neolithic.

House 1, in Trench XX (12x10 m), was found in Trench VI during the 1976 excavations, although it alsoextended to Trench XXV (10x4 m: figs. 60; 69, 2-5 and 71, 1-5). The uppermost ploughed and loosened soilwas removed first, revealing characteristic house debris (burnt wattle-and-daub fragments, red-burntpowder-like soil, vessel fragments and net-weights) over most of it, at a depth of some 50-60 cm. Pits of latergraves, soil loosening and other intrusions disturbed the house, although conjoining vessels fragments werefound in several places (figs. 69, 4 and 5 and 71, 3-5).

The basic building material of the walls was unfired, heavily chaff-tempered, yellow clay. The fragmentswere fired red, although originally they might have been sun-dried. The unprepared floor of stamped earth lay ona sterile alluvial brown soil. Apart from a unique foundation sacrifice pit (figs. 60 and 71, 1 and 2), the onlystructural remains associated with the large wattle and daub fragments were three large postholes excavated intothe virgin soil beneath the house floor (fig. 60). One lay at the edge of the wattle-and-daub remains. These postsmight have supported large roof beams and/or reinforced the walls. No information is available about the wallheight and slope, corner binding and roof construction. Some wattle-and-daub fragments were large lumps of

143. B112a+b+c+d+e+f+g+h = Trench XVIII/1978, Pit 1, 30-60 cm. B113a+b+c = Trench XVIII/1978, west, 30-120 cm. B114a+b+c+d+e = TrenchXVIII/1978, east, 50-110 cm (= Pit 1). B115 = Trench XVIII/1978, east, Pit 1, 110-150 cm. B116a+b+c+d+e+f = Trench XVIII/1978, west, 60-90 cm.B117a+b = Trench XVIII/1978, west, 90-120 cm. B118a+b = Trench XVIII/1978, west, Pit 1, 120-150 cm. B119 = Trench XVIII/1978, 60-90 cm. B120 =Trench XVIII/1978, west, Pit 1. B121 = Trench XVIII/1978, Pit 1.144. For its parallels see Pit 1 in Trench IV above (fig. 64, 3) and also Endrõd 119 (fig. 99, 2). 145. Box reference numbers B110 and B111.

– 123

chaff-tempered clay with parallel impressions of medium-sized beams, planks or branches, up to 15-20 cm ofdiameter. A tentative reconstruction would include the vertical walls and a roof of medium-sized timbersoverlaid by a chaff-tempered mud plaster covering. The walls were plastered inside and probably also outside.The house was probably divided in two halves as indicated by its plan and hourglass shape (fig. 60). Thedistribution of the artefacts within the house was a combination of scattered refuse (vessel fragments, boneimplements, spindle whorls, etc.) and pots broken in situ. Post-excavation restoration works succeeded inrestoring 5-6 vessels from more than 10 groups of conjoining fragments (figs. 69, 4 and 5 and 71, 3-5)146.

The orientation of the squared debris was NNE-SSW. Similar was also the orientation of a narrow, oblong,inner part in its southern half, which was not covered by large wattle-and-daub fragments (figs. 60 and 71, 1 and2). When the house ruins were removed, the outline of a rectangular depression came out. It was some 1.2 m longand 4.5 m wide in the centre of the southern part (room?). This pit was recognisable because of a few wattle anddaub fragments, which were found only in the corresponding part of the house floor, above the pit contour,buried into its upper part. This might indicate that the pit was empty during the existence of the house, or it had aloose fill until the end of the use of the house. Many wattle-and-daub fragments and clay net-weights fallen inside from the ruins of the house, were found in the pit. A deposit of large fragments of several incomplete vessels wasdiscovered against the sidewall of the pit, above the wattle-and-daub fragments. This was not an in situ floor but,more probably, the remains of broken vessels, kept in this part of the house. These remains indicate that after theorganic construction and/or fill of the pit had decayed, part of a (wooden?) cover above it fell inside.

The shape of this inner place was similar to a very long grave pit, although it later resulted to be part of thehouse with the foundation ritual, sacrificial pit, in its eastern side (figs. 60 and 71, 1 and 2) (MAKKAY, 1983). Asmall concentration of burnt, wattle-and-daub fragments, and a yellow unburnt clay layer, were found outside thehouse, on the surface of Trench XXII, which most probably represented the foreground of House 1. It was coveredby a thin layer of house debris, derived from the collapse of the roof. Fragments of a large Körös container with abarbotine decoration were found amongst and around the debris. The large oval pit had been excavated from a levelcorresponding to the house floor, contemporaneous with the house and the postholes. Therefore we may concludethat it had been filled with a loose soil and covered with organic materials (wooden planks?) just before theconstruction of the house. It was 40-45cm deep and contained two other features: a posthole, 60 cm in diameter atits western end, and an oven-like domed structure, in its eastern part (fig. 71, 1 and 2). The beehive internal pit, witha domed structure, was excavated into the sterile soil from the bottom of the rectangular depression.

The original depth of the feature was some 88-89 cms, from the surface of the fired wattle-and-daubfragments of the house. A 2-3 cm thick slip of pure, yellow clay covered its bottom, showing that the structurewas originally, entirely plastered. Also its upper walls were lined with a slip of pure, yellow clay. The virgin soilbelow the lower surface of the clay coating was porous, of a red-orange colour, caused by an intentional fireopened during an initial (purification?) ceremony or primitiae sacrifice.

Of particular interest are two vessels placed on the plastered clay floor. A complete, crashed, globular jar,beneath which the fragments of a large four-feet bowl were found in its centre (fig. 71, 3-5). The globular jar (fig.71, 4) was partly covered with the same clay plaster layer, applied to the floor and the pit walls. This plaster coveradjoined the wall lining. The loose fill between the bottom clay and the clay plaster contained a considerablequantity of ash, indicating a repeated, kindled sacrificial fire. When the house was destroyed, parts of thesuperstructure fell or were thrown into the pit, damaging its upper part. Amongst its debris and the original pit fill,there was a number of potsherds and a necked jar (fig. 71, 3) with a pierced base, together with a globular jar and awide, footed bowl (fig. 71, 5). All these three reconstructed vessels belong to the same Körös Culture Classic phase.

The foundation sacrifice of House 1 was probably kept open for a while, because the fragments of severalvessels, lying in its western edge, fell into the pit from the above house floor, or were offered repeatedly duringceremonies, after the deposition of the foundation ritual, just before the building of the house. Anotherpossibility is that the sacrificial pit was temporarily covered during the life of the house, and opened for shortperiods only during repeated ceremonies of specific festivities, as for instance unburnt primitiae offerings afterthe harvest (MAKKAY, 1992a: 226, note 66; 1988: 15, notes 53 and 54). This reconstruction is supported by theabsence of plaster fragments above and within the fill of the sacrificial pit, except for those fallen during thedecay of the house, as, for instance, wooden planks covering the pit.

146. See also MAKKAY and STARNINI (forthcoming 2: Pl. 244, 2, vessel 11; Pl. 244, 7, vessel 3; Pl. 245, 1; Pl. 245, 5, vessel 6; Pl. 245, 4, vessel 12; Pl. 246,1, vessel 7; Pl. 246, 6, vessel 8).

124 –

The function of this structure is unique. Its unusual location, beneath the house floor, shape, innerconstruction and finds, indicate that it was not an ordinary or storage pit. Its analysis has demonstrated that it wasa sacrificial pit, which might have contained the remains of a foundation sacrifice. There is enough evidence tosuggest that it was a conventional, domestic building and not a shrine. Furthermore, it seems reasonable toassume that a bloodless foundation sacrifice had been offered in the pit, because of the absence of animal bones.We can distinguish two different parts in the performance of the rite:a. The pouring of a libation with the globular jar, using the necked bowl with a pierced base. The function of

these bowls is unclear, while it cultural attribution is simple because they recur in every Körös Culturephase. According to its recovery context, we can deduce that its function was associated with libatio(MAKKAY, 2001b: 287 and 288).

b. Burnt offerings, which were primarily or exclusively the offerings of the first fruits (primitae) of the field to theEarth Goddess. Remains of these burnt offerings were buried below the clay plaster covering the globular jar.The role of the pedestalled bowl in the ceremony is unknown. First a sacrificial fire was kindled in the pit. Itdeveloped such a heat that the virgin soil around and parts of the clay lining reddened. As the few broken parts ofthe pedestalled bowl indicate that a ritual breakage of vessels (’Scherbenmachen’) was part of the ceremony.After the burnt, sacrifices were offered and laid in the pit, a compact layer of pure clay was plastered on the

top of the deposited remains, including the libation, globular jar. The pit was perhaps temporary sealed becausethe house was consecrated with this act (MAKKAY, 1983: 157-160; 1986: 170, fig. 1).

Here I have only summarised the most important issues regarding the cultural interpretation of the KörösCulture sacrificial pits. A detailed description of similar ritual offerings will be discussed in the chapter dealingwith the features of Endrõd 3/119.

The supposed function of this pit seems to contradict the fact that the pit itself was cut across the floor, as theprofile of fig. 71, 1 shows the debris of the house. The only acceptable interpretation is that the deposition of thefoundation sacrifice (i.e. the excavation of the pit) did not necessarily precede the end of the house construction.Building sacrifices can also be deposited during construction works, i.e. inside the building walls. Further, the pit might have been kept empty. It was opened during the life of the house, covered with planks, and the house debris might have fallen inside after its abandonment. Otherwise the pit may have been reopened for repeatedceremonies and this reopening cut through parts of the house floor.

Following the cleaning of the surface from the house rubble, burnt wattle-and-daub fragments, which were abundant along its western side, and occasional clusters of vessels, the potsherds were removed and collectedtogether with animal bones, small finds (bone implements, broken figurines and perforated spindle whorls147)and large net-weights. It became clear that the edge of Pit 1 in Trench VIII/1977, with its uppermost fillspreading out on the Neolithic subsoil, lay very close to the house. It is possible that wall and roof plasterfragments fell into the uppermost layer of this pit when the house decayed. As mentioned above, these burntfragments were found in this part of the pit in Trenches VI and VIII. This indicates that the house and the pit are contemporaneous. Another possibility is that these plaster fragments were thrown here during the digging ofgrave Pit 10 inside the western part of House 1.

Our repeated efforts to find the floor of House 1 remained unsuccessful. It did not show a continuousplastered floor, and most of the living area was mud-plastered or stamped earth constituted its floor. The outlineof the house was marked by the debris, surrounded by a compact, black soil with small clay particles and agreyish, ashy soil beneath them. The dimensions of House 1, in Trench XX are: N-S 8.5 m, and E-W 8.4 m, 6.8 m(north end), 9.5 m (south end). The layer of ruined wattle-of-daub remains was 20-25 cm thick from the floor.Large, and also small burnt fragments, often showing wooden plank and also reed impressions, lay on a 1-2 cmthick, burnt layer that covered the stamped floor. This floor yielded no finds. All the vessels fragments and thesmall finds were found in the destruction deposit.

The house was built at the top of a some 30 cm thick Neolithic subsoil, which covered a thin,yellowish-brownish, clay layer, belonging to the virgin soil, which did not yield any finds. The original locationof the house was along the north, gentle slope of a small elevation. Its southern end was 40 cm higher than theopposite. No posthole was found inside the house, except for two shallow, circular holes aligned with the inner,oblong, sacrificial pit structure. One more posthole was discovered near the SE corner, east of the sacrificial pit,

147. For a full collection see MAKKAY (2001c: 21-32). Eight pieces were found within the debris of this house, indicating that spinning was carried out bywomen as a daily routine work in the houses and their immediate surroundings.

– 125

out of the house (not represented in the map of fig. 60). Another shallow depression (posthole?) was discoveredout of the eastern side of the house.

Trench XXIX contained a rubble-deposit, below the ploughed soil, in a greyish layer at the top of the subsoil, and also part of a refuse pit in the western end, in Trench XXIX/C extending into Trench XXX (called Pit 1 inTrench XXX/1998; fig. 72). Trench XXIX/C revealed a small pit (Pit 1 in Trench XXIX, 140 cm deep). Its loose,brown fill yielded fragments of lamps or altars associated with a few fragments of fine Körös ware.

Phases Features

ALP, phases Gyoma 107 and Szarvas 102 Not represented

Late Körös-Protovinèa-Szatmár A few sporadic finds

Late Körös with Protovinèa elements Pit in Trench XVIII

Classic KörösMost of the houses and pits, with subphases

(Early Szatmár incised imports in the final subphases)Stone hoard

house in Trench III

Early Körös Not represented or only its short final subphase

Table 11 - Internal chronology of Endrõd 3/39.

The excavated features of Endrõd 3/39 can be attributed to short, overlapping internal phases of the middle,Körös Culture Classic phase as, for instance, the preparation of the stone hoard during the life of House 1 inTrench III and its deposition after the destruction of the house. House 1, in Trenches I-II, can be partlycontemporaneous with its neighbouring Pit 1, and House 1, in Trench XX, with the large refuse pit in TrenchesVIII, etc. However, the question whether the 4 or 5 houses were contemporaneous or subsequent and used duringthe entire middle Körös phase, is open. Finds of the early (white-on-brown/red paint) and evolved, Protovinèaphases are not represented. Seven ALP fragments from seven different features show that these imported pieceswere brought into the site just before the end of the Classic phase, followed by abundant Protovinèa vessel shapes at other sites as, for instance, Endrõd 3/6 and Szarvas 8/23.

126 –

Fig. 73 - Endrõd, site 3/119: General map of the 1986-1989 excavations (corrected version of MAKKAY, 1992: the general map).

– 127

7. ENDRÕD, SITE 3/119 (figs. 73-117)

7.1. SITE DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY OF THE RESEARCH

As mentioned above, the Microregional Program of the AI was a main research project, which started in1984, at the prehistoric and later settlements of the central part of the Szarvas Topography volume, i.e. in thesouthern areas of the villages of Gyoma and Endrõd (fig. 1, 7). Within the framework of this project, fourexcavation seasons were carried out at Endrõd 3/119, between 1986 and 1989 (MAKKAY, 1992: 121). Thework lasted twenty weeks altogether, between July 14th and August 19th, 1986 (Trenches 1-19), July 13th andAugust 19th, 1987 (Trenches 20-32), July 4th and 29th, 1988 (Trenches 33-38) and July 17th and August 29th,1989 (Trenches 39-55). The number of workmen ranged between eight and twelve, thus averaging ten. Thismeans some 1,000 man days during the 100 days period.

A surface of some 2,500 sq m was investigated in 55 trenches, which corresponds to 2.5 sq m per capitadaily recovery rate. As a result, the entire small site was uncovered, except for its edges, especially its southernparts (as for example an unexcavated small areas belonging to Pit 13 in Trenches 37 and 38). The depth of thesite ranged between 30/60 and 200 cm (i.e. the unploughed/not loosened soil and the deepest parts of rubbishpits). Consequently, when a rough mean thickness of 1 m of the cultural deposit is estimated, one may reckonwith a mean daily performance of 2.5 m3, the upper limit of the output by which the excavated material maystill be appropriately retrieved. For this achievement, thanks are due to a crew recruited in the village ofEndrõd and especially the first-class, skilled workmen Géza Valuska, †György Nagy and †Sándor Czikkely.The village of Endrõd was once famous for its excellent pick-and-shovel men who had participated in hugeconstruction works (roads, embankments, railways) in the Carpathian Basin, Austria and Germany, beforeWorld War Two. The present author, who was born and grew up in the same area of Hungary, is very happy tohave cooperated with their last generation.

The small site was discovered in 1976 by the topographic survey. The small, oval elevation, some 1 mhigher than its surroundings, lay in a northeast-southwest direction. Its surface, and especially the top, wascovered with Körös Culture sherds and broken net-weights148. At the time of its discovery, this fact wasexclusively connected with the intensity of occupation. Later, however, it turned out to be partly the result oftillage, i.e. soil loosening (see Chapter 6.). Fortunately none of the tractor drivers ever worked conscientiouslyenough to reach the depth of 80 cm, which is required for this kind of tillage. In effect the real depth was onlysome 50-60 cm. Thus only the first 30-60 cm of the site were disturbed. In addition, the virgin, yellow clay wasoften found at a depth of 60 cm and it would not have been reasonable to mix this layer with the cultivatedhumus strata. Consequently, the burnt remains of Houses 1 and 2, built on the original prehistoric surface(buried soil), were discovered within the 30-60 cm layer. Due to tillage, the structural data of the two housescould not be recovered. Furthermore, also the artefacts associated to the houses, which might have been wellpreserved only a few years before, were badly damaged. For instance, the beautiful figurine of a hybridcreature, with a bird face and woman buttocks (a Siren), was found, without any context, at the top of the firedclay wall and roof fragments, within the ruins of House 2, in Trench 29 (fig. 95, 1, together with an almostcomplete, carinated, bucchero-type pedestalled bowl of: fig. 94, 5). It was probably applied to the end of thefirst gable of the house (MAKKAY, 1990: Pl. 1, 1; 1992: Pl. I, 2; 1999a: figs. 12 and 19).

The whole area of Endrõd-Öregszõlõk (Old Vineyards, i.e. the central area of the Microregion Project) islocated at the border between two regions, characterised by different soils. It spreads over the northern edge of thealluvial fan of the Old Maros River (more precisely the Late Pleistocene ’Old Great River’), which is interwoven by smaller stretches, and floodplains of the Early Holocene Körös River Valley. If we do not consider the poormaterial culture remains of Endrõd 121, which is located some 200-300 m from the site under study (MRT8, 1989:167), then Site 119 is the southernmost Körös Culture settlement of the Gyoma-Endrõd area of the Körös RiverValley. Moving southwards, the closest Körös site is Csorvás-Orosházi útfél, on the low bank of an Early Holocenedead arm of the Maros, which had cut, into older deposits of the alluvial fan (MAKKAY, 1987: map 1, n. 10).

Its peripheral location and small dimension made it suitable for a full excavation and even emphasised thenecessity of a research here. Another reason why this site was selected is its proximity to Endrõd 3/39, which was excavated in five rescue and test seasons between 1975 and 1978. Thus, this site might contribute to solve themany chronological problems. During the discussions preceding the excavations, the suggestion was that Endrõd

148. J. Chapman and J. Makkay carried out a short trial excavation at the site before 1986 during which they found the southernmost edge of Pit 7 in Trench 7.

128 –

119 was a ’satellite site’ contemporary with, and depending on, the much larger settlement of Endrõd 3/39149.The comparison of the material culture remains, first of all the absence of Early Körös types at Endrõd 39 cannotfully support this opinion. On the other hand, the discovery of curious relief representations might help shedssome light on this chronological question.

7.1.1. Female relief figures in ‘total frontality’

The plastic representations of goats, red deer and female images, applied to the walls of large, coarsecontainers are common to, and characteristic exclusively of the Körös assemblages. Some of the femalefigures are simple and geometric; others are more elaborate and naturalistic, with deeply incised motifs,probably representing tattoos.

One rare variant consists in some form of extreme symbolism represented by female images. One of the mostimportant characteristics of the Early Egyptian art is the so-called double frontality (SCHULZ and SEIDEL, 1998:figs. 39; 60; 73 and 76; Pl. 1, etc.). The Egyptian way of representing the human posture was its profile and partlyhead-on: heads, arms and legs are drawn in profile, the torso (the breast) frontally. In contrast, some of the KörösCulture female relieves depict the human posture in ‘total frontality’. Both the upper and the lower body arerepresented frontally, the breast from the front and the lower body from the back. The reason is that they wanted toemphasise the secondary sexual characteristics, the breasts and the steatopygous buttocks (MAKKAY, 2001: 32-34,fig. 8, 2 and 9, 2). Only two isolated cases of this type of relief, have been recorded up-to-now: the first was found in 1976 on the surface of site 119, the second is another stray find discovered on the surface of Endrõd 3/39.

This art representation was undoubtedly not influenced by the Egyptian models and it is supposed to reflectlocal ideas. My suggestion is that their manufacture represents a common cultural heritage of the two sites, which testifies a common background of artistic craftsmanship.

Such an astonishing similarity can occasionally be observed also in the pottery manufacture, as shown bythe red-slipped and polished fragments of two high necked jars with wide flat circular knobs on their belly,from Szarvas 8/23 (Pit in Trenches I-II, 110-220 cm), Endrõd 3/35 (fig. 58, 3), Endrõd 3/39 (Trench III, 1975,50-70 cm) and Szarvas 8/56 (fig. 118)150. The so-called metallic shape and finish of a pedestalled carinatedbowl decorated with a wide channelling on its belly, found in the rubble of House 2 at Endrõd 3/119 (fig. 95, 4;see above) shows a striking similarity with its smaller variant from Pit 5 of the same site (from a depth of 90 to130 cm; MAKKAY, 1992: Pl. 1: 1and 2; and also 1990: Pl. 1: 1-3). Shape, decoration and finish suggest that thesame potter made these two vessels or they reflect a common, contemporaneous tradition. A similar case wasalso observed on an interesting vessel from three different features at Endrõd 3/39. The three or fourhemispherical, open bowls were found in Pit 1, Trenches VIII-X, XIV and XIX151, one very large vessel fromthe eastern part of Trench XXIX152. Probably also one similar vessel from Pit 1, Trench XXX153, shows acomparable shape and a rare, almost identical decoration: the application of true and fluted barbotine togetheron the same unusual vessel type (MAKKAY and STARNINI, forthcoming 2: fig. 222, 1 and 2 and 254, 1). Thesimilarities are so close that one can suggest that they were made by the same potter.

These chronological comparisons are difficult because of biased speculations regarding the longchronology of the Körös Culture. It is sufficient here to mention an example from site 119. It yielded 140domesticated pig bones referred to 20 maximum individuals (BÖKÖNYI, 1992: 197). In BÖKÖNYI’s (1992:237) view, according to the radiocarbon dates, Endrõd 3/119 “was inhabited throughout the whole span of theKörös Culture (Makkay, pers. comm.). This would mean ca. 500 years (from about 5000 to 4500 years BC)”.According to the recently suggested lifespan of the culture of at least eight hundred years, from about 6000 to5200 years BC (WHITTLE et al., 2002: 64). The site itself yielded ceramic types attributable to all the suggested Körös phases and subphases (with the exception of the latest, transitional Protovinèa phase, represented by thevessels from Pit 1 in Trench VIII/1979 at Szarvas 8/23; see above, and figs. 21-29). Nevertheless it is acommonplace that the Körös pottery is not an easy material for a detailed chronological classification(MAKKAY, 1965; 1969). Together with the neighbouring site Endrõd 3/39, it probably represents a continuousoccupation throughout most of the entire Körös Culture. Following the time-span suggested by the

149. CHAPMAN (2003: 95) confused Endrõd 39 with Endrõd 35.150. Szarvas 8/23, Pit 1 in Trenches I-II, 1974, 110-220 cm (Inv. no. 78.40.10.) and Endrõd 3,/39, Trench III, 1975, 50-70 cm (Inv. no. 78.79. 1.). 151. One large and one smaller specimen, inventory numbers are 79.6.1018 and 79.6.1019.152. Inventory number 79.6.24.153. Inventory number 79.6.1029.

– 129

radiocarbon dates, should this imply that one pig was killed every 15, 25 or 40 years? The site was fullyexcavated and the entire bone sample (the largest faunal sample ever collected from the excavation of a Körössettlement or even of a SE European Early Neolithic settlement) was studied by S. BÖKÖNYI (1992).

In his review of the Gyomaendrõd Microregion Project, J.M. O’SHEA (1993: 932 and 933) seems to havemisunderstood the above figures: “Makkay concluded that a small settlement of two houses was occupiedcontinuously for the entire 500-year span of the Körös period, leaving Bökönyi to rationalize how a faunalassemblage representing the nutritional needs of two nuclear families for 13.7 years does not conflict with asupposed 500-year occupation of the site”. As a matter of fact, I never suggested such a date for Endrõd 119either to Bökönyi or anybody else. In contrast, I wrote that the life of this small settlement might be subdividedinto two periods, 1) House 2 and the two or three pits associated with it (Pits 12, 13 and perhaps 10) attributable to an earlier phase and 2) House 1, above Pit 5, belonging to a second phase (MAKKAY, 1992: 127). The shortoccupation of the site, of probably 4-6 generations at the most, is also supported by the very low number ofexcavated graves (10-11 skeletons or parts of skeletons), characterised by a simple deposition into refuse pitswithin the site itself. The 500 years duration of the settlement was a mere speculation of S. Bökönyi who devotedmany of his energies to complicated archaeological issues among which is chronology154. My attribution of theEndrõd 119 Körös pottery types to different chronological phases of the possible entire life span means thattypologically different Körös Culture ceramics, which are supposed to represent different phases of the culture,

Fig. 74 - Endrõd, site 3/119. General plan of the 1986 season.

154. See BÖKÖNYI’s (1983-1985) idea on the chronological value of the post-Pleistocene faunal remains: “its firm base can only be the changes in therelative frequency of the different species”.

130 –

Fig. 75 - Endrõd, site 3/119. 1: Reconstructed plan of the lowest layer in sacrificial Pit A1 with the dog bones (D.23.399). 2: Plan of Pit 5 in Trenches 6-7and 10-11 with sacrificial Pit A1 and positions of sections A-B and C-D (D.23.405).

– 131

were recovered from pits and other settlement features. Such a suggested chronological differentiation of theceramic types has not been so far demonstrated, and they will further remain suggestions.

For various reasons, the numbering of the individual features (refuse pits, ovens, etc.) recovered during thefour excavation seasons started from number one every season. In my preliminary report, the features arerenumbered from the first to last, according to their day of discovery (MAKKAY, 1992: the general map, and itscorrected version, in fig. 73) except for Pit 2 in Trench 26 (BRN E26) and Pit 1 in Trench 27 (BRN E34), whoseoriginal numbers have been maintained. They were kept also in the case of smaller refuse pits and postholes: insuch cases, a lower case p is used in their description here: Pit 2 in Trench 26.

Every detail concerning our analyses of the ceramics and other assemblages is valid also for this site.According to the late autumn 1993 instructions given by S. Bökönyi, 8,744 potsherds from the 1986-1989excavations at this site were selected and reburied in the neighbouring Tiszapolgár Culture site Endrõd 3/130,excavated by I. Zalai-Gaál. The sherds were allegedly selected amongst the undecorated, coarse ware fragmentsthen kept in the collections of the AI in Budapest, and hopefully no rim and base fragments were discarded. Thepresent author did not take part either in the selection or burial of this assemblage.

7.1.2. The 1986 season (Trenches 1-19)

The first season was carried out in a 20x20 sq m trench subdivided into 16 5x5 m grids, which were numberedfrom 1 to 16, and 3 extensions, i.e. Trenches 17-19. They were opened to complete the recovery of refuse pits andother features (fig. 74). First, the uppermost ploughed layer between 0 and 40 cm was removed, and the artefactswere collected and kept according their respective trench (grid) numbers. A dense sherd scatter was found in thecentre of the area (i.e. in Trenches 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11) and also in the northeastern corner, in Trench 13 (fig. 74). Thefirst concentration corresponds to the location of Pit 5, while we were not able to discover any feature in the area ofTrench 13. The black, ploughed soil was very dry and the uppermost layer had a depth of 0-50 cm at some places,especially in the central area. A few potsherds of the Late Bronze Age Gáva Culture were found in the eastern partof Trench 13, while Árpádian finds were recovered from Trenches 1 and 2 (House 3 and Pit 1) and also 14 and 15.Typical Bodrogkeresztúr Culture potsherds were found in Trenches 11 and 15 at a depth of 40 and 30-50 cmsrespectively (fig. 116, 8 with other fragments of the same culture in fig. 116, 5-7 and 9).

Árpádian graves (X-XI century AD) were discovered in the northern part of the area (i.e. Graves 5-9; figs.74; 75; 77; 78, 3 and 4 and 79, 4). Other Árpádian skeletons were recovered from Graves 12 and 15 (fig. 73). Also House 3 in Trench 2 belongs to this period (fig. 74).

In the adjoining Trenches 6 and 10, at a depth of some 50 cm, four skeletons were discovered at the bottom of the ploughed and loosened soil: Graves 1, 2, 3 and 4 (figs. 74 and 79, 4). Due to the soil loosening they were verydisturbed, also because the Bronze Age Pit 6 had cut the bones of Graves 1-3. The other bones found at the top ofthe undisturbed soil within the yellowish-greyish Körös Culture layer, can be attributed to this latter culture.

• Grave 1: E-W oriented bones of an infant, without grave goods. The leg bones were cut by Pit 6.

• Grave 2: W-E oriented infant without grave goods.• Grave 3: W-E oriented skeleton of an adult lying on its ventral side, without any grave goods. The skull and

legs were swept away during tillage. Some of the skull fragments and the ribs show traces of burning. Thispoints to a connection with the neighbouring House 1. This indicates that the skeletons belong to the Körösperiod and their death is probably due to the destruction of the house by fire. Bones of these graves werefound in shallow depressions (grave pits?) excavated into the hard greyish Körös house layer, filled with aloose soil. Their orientation differs from that of the Árpádian burials. Also this circumstance supports theirattribution to the Körös period.

• Grave 4: infant skull discovered south of the above-mentioned three burials, at the same depth (some 50 cmbelow the present surface). According to the field notes, it might be attributed to the Neolithic.A concentration of artefacts, broken vessels, net-weights, fired clay, animal bones and a few bone

implements (MAKKAY, 1990a: 52-56, n. 1) was discovered at a depth of some 50 cm. It lay at the top and withinthe uppermost horizon of the undisturbed, grey, ashy soil, mainly in the southern part of Trenches 6 and 7, in theadjoining northern part of Trenches 2, 3 and 4 north and west of Graves 1-3 (figs. 74 and 75, 2). A denseconcentration contained fragments of five vessels and heavy net-weights. The sherds of one large jar were foundbelow a large piece of wattle-and-daub, suggesting that it fell on the vessel when the house collapsed. Close tothis vessel, there was a six-feet bowl containing freshwater molluscs, fragmented by the collapse of the roof. A

132 –

Fig. 76 - Endrõd, site 3/119. 1-2: Pit 7, section made on the baulk between Trenches 7 and 11 from the N and NNE (P.131.482-P.131.483).

– 133

Fig. 77 - Endrõd, site 3/119. 1: Section C-D of Pit 5, Bronze Age Pit 6 and Árpádian Age Grave 7. 2: Section A-B of sacrificial Pit A1 (for the numbering ofits inner layers see the text).

134 –

burnt, ashy deposit belonging to the same horizon, representing the undisturbed part of the debris of House 1 wasdiscovered in Trench 8 with fired wattle-and-daub fragments.

House 1 was represented by a characteristic layer of partly burnt rubble in Trenches 2-4, 6-8, 10-12, 14-15, in the centre of the 1986 excavation area, at a depth of 30 to 60 cm (fig. 104, 1 and 2). Its stratigraphic position, thesame of the uppermost greyish, ashy level above Pit 5, is between the plough zone and the sterile soil at 60 cm ofdepth. This rubble of ash and fired wattle-and-daub fragments sloped down to a depth of 70 to 75 cm towards theeast, above Pit 5 (figs. 76, 12 and 77, above). This shows that Pit 5 was not completely filled when House 1 wasconstructed. In Trench 7, a dark greyish layer containing many fired clay fragments was identified between 55and 90 cm. It seemed to divide the debris of the destroyed house from the lower brownish fill of Pit 5, probablyrepresenting the building refuse of House 1 (section C-D, fig. 77, C-D). This should indicate a short depositionphase between the use of the pit and the building of House 1. The finds from these features were collectedseparately. The house debris was very rich in artefacts in Trenches 7 and 8. A similar situation was noticed inTrench 16, where burnt wattle-and-daub pieces were observed at a depth of 35 to 50 cm above the easternmostpart of Pit 9. They might belong to the debris of House 1 or, more probably, to the living area around it, becausethe fired fragments of a greyish house layer were not observed below the debris.

The finds from the rubble of House 1, above Pit 5, include two large fragments of back parts of characteristicbull statuettes, representing consecration horns, usually replastered (fig. 104, 1 and 2). Traces of replastering caneasily be seen on the lower, right part of the larger fragment. The inner surface shows traces of heavy fire. Itsuggests that this part of the debris originally belonged to House 1 and it does not predate the building and use of it.

Our fragments have precise parallels in the bull-shaped cult objects with horns on their back fromSzolnok-Szanda House 4 (KALICZ and RACZKY, 1981: Pls. 1-5; MAKKAY and STARNINI, forthcoming 3).KALICZ and RACZKY (1981: 16) suggested that a bull cult, related to these figurines “came to SoutheastEurope along with the knowledge of a food producing economy prior to Hacilar I, in a period contemporarywith Çatal-Hüyük. In spite of the fact that Greece had very close links with western Anatolia during the EarlyNeolithic, the previously mentioned large sculptures of the bull cult from the Carpathian Basin and theBalkans are not known in Greece”. If my former parallels are still acceptable, the forerunners of the Cretanhorns of sacrifice can be probably found locally, as a representation on an EN stamp-like clay object found atKnossos might suggest (MAKKAY, 1984b: fig. 1 and 2a-b)155.

The layer of House 1 was heavily disturbed by tillage, down to a depth of 45 to 50 cm. Graves 1-4 were found at the eastern end of this house rubble layer. They were badly damaged by soil loosening. In addition their boneswere partly burnt, partly slightly dislocated. These two facts suggest that they belong to House 1, destroyed byfire and are to be attributed to the Körös period. This house did not yield any postholes.

The cleaning at a depth of some 50 cm did not show discolourations or other structural remains, eitherisolated or belonging to House 1, with the exception of the outlines of Pit 5 and the later structures around it (i.e.Bronze Age Pit 6 and Pit 7 of undefined age). Removing the debris of the house, no plastered or stamped floorwas observed. At the same time, the outlines of a further pit were noticed in the southwestern corner of Trench 3,and also in the southeastern corner of Trench 4. After repeated cleanings at the depth of 70-75 cm, the densescatter of Körös pottery indicated the presence of another Körös refuse Pit 4.

Pits 1, 2 and 3 in Trenches 1-4, and also Pit 1 in Trench 18, belong to the Árpádian period (figs. 73 and 74).The spits from 50 to 70-75 cm below the fill of House 1 contained sporadic Körös pottery, most probablybelonging to House 1.

A concentration of Körös artefacts in the northwestern part of Trench 12, and also in the southwesterncorner of Trench 16, showed the presence of a Körös refuse pit at a depth of 50 cm. The cleaning laterconfirmed these observations (Pit 9 lying mainly in Trench 19).

The refuse Pit 5, in Trenches 6-7 and 10-11, was excavated in portions, according to the position of section C-D on the northern wall of the baulk between Trenches 6-7 and 10-11 (figs. 75-77). First the northern part ofthis baulk was excavated. Two later intrusions were observed. The easternmost part of the pit was first cut byBronze Age Pit 6, and much later by the excavation of the Árpádian Grave 7 (figs. 75, 2 and 77, section C-D).The lower deposit of the pit was characterised by a brown soil containing Körös artefacts. An isolated, centralpart of this structure contained much sand with fired clay fragments156. Above this lower brown fill, there was

155. See also the Catalogue of the 2001-2204 Exhibition commemorating the 2004 Olympic Games in Athens: The Bull in the Mediterranean World, Mythsand Cults. Barcelona-Athens, 2003.156. Sand can be found in the area of site 119 at a depth below 3 m. Therefore it was extracted intentionally.

– 135

a 10-30 cm thick deposit of fired clay embedded in a hard grey soil, probably to be interpreted as the depositedrefuse from the building of House 1 during, or shortly after the construction of the house. Above it, a wide, looseashy layer, possibly contemporaneous with the house, contained many artefacts (or, this ash can result from ahuge fire that destroyed the house). The uppermost layer of the house rubble can be correlated with thedestruction and decay of House 1 (or the final erosion of the house remains after its destruction). Theseobservations support my original idea that Pit 5 was opened before the building of House 1, although the artefacts inside it can be partly or mainly contemporaneous with the life span of House 1.

The excavation of the southern part of Pit 5 revealed a very interesting sequence inside the pit-fill (sacrificialPit A1; fig. 75, 2, marked with an asterisk, and also fig. 77, section A-B). This part of the refuse pit was as deep asthe northern part, some 200 cm, while between the two deepest parts there was a low bank. The upper,destruction layer of the house debris (A) and the ashy deposit (B) continued although, instead of the hard grey,sooty layer, here we found house debris (C) above a light brown soil (D). The next layer (E) corresponded to thelowermost debris (the isolated ashy layer with fired clay in section C-D), and the lowermost thin, brown sandlayer (the ashy deposit in section C-D, fig. 77, not represented in section A-B) contained much ash and charcoal(fig. 77, section A-B, after MAKKAY [1989a: 244-246 and fig. 5]). Below it, we reached a 12 to 20 cm thick blacklayer (lower D). It contained an almost complete four-feet altar, with a broken, upper bowl in an upside-downposition, associated with many small fish bones, a few complete fish skeletons, and Lymnea stagnalis freshwatermolluscs. This black layer contained much charcoal (which probably corresponds to the lowermost, thin,charcoal layer in the northern part of the pit), ash and small particles of fired clay.

The fish bones from the black layer belong to four different species (table 12)157.

Species Specimens Individuals Right Left

Pike (Esox lucius L.) 19 9 10 8

Carp (Cyprinus carpio L.) 57 20 16 -

Indet. carps (Cyprinidae) 1 1 - -

Catfish (Silurus glanis L.) 7 7 5 2

Unidentified 49 1 - -

Total 133 11 31 10

Table 12 - Fish species from Endrõd 119, Pit 5, black layer.

At present carp, pike and catfish belong to the ichtyofauna of the Körös River and even today they are themost preferred species. On the other hand, there seems to be no reason why the sacrificers deposited three timesmore right side bones than left side. Fish sacrifices were common to the Ubaid and Uruk period sites in AncientMesopotamia, among which are Eridu, Tello and Uruk. At Eridu (level VII), one of the Ubaid sanctuaries yielded heaps of ash containing fish bones. Apparently they were not part of a food storage or kitchen midden, but theremains of continuous and repeated offering sacrifices to the Earth and Water God Enki (VAN BUREN, 1948;1952). In the Uruk period layers at Uruk, large quantities of fish bones, among which are complete skeletons andskins, were found crammed into enclosures (BLACK and GREEN, 1997: 158 and 159).

The religious character of the Endrõd fish-and-altar sacrifice cannot be interpreted only on the basis ofthese analogies. Even its correlation with the sacrificed dog, deposited into the deepest part of the inner pit isdoubtful. If the sacrificial Pit A1, in the deepest part of Pit 5, belongs to the earliest settlement period, wellbefore the destruction of House 1, the ceremony can probably be related to some purification rituals that tookplace before the building of House 1.

The black layer (lower D) became thicker towards the south, with a low percentage of fish bones. Beneaththis black layer deeper deposits were found. Their profile (section A-B in fig. 77, F) revealed a verycharacteristic sacrificial deposit (MAKKAY, 1989a)158 in a piriform pit 105 cm deep. The nine layers of its fillare described from the bottom to the top:1) The lowest layer i was unique: the braincase of a dog skull was found in its centre, amongst many Lymnea

stagnalis freshwater molluscs, while the two lower mandibles were separated from it and also from each other:they had been deposited close to the northern pit-wall (fig. 75, 1). A few dog vertebrae were found at the samedepth in anatomic connection, and four ribs close to the opposite wall. From a zoological point of view, the dog

157. Identified by Imre Nagy. The statistics do not refer to these bones from sacrificial Pit A1. 158. For a more detailed study of the sacrificial pits and their internal stratigraphy see MAKKAY (1963; 1975; 1979; 1982c; 1983; 1986; 1987a; 1988; 1992a; 1996a and 2002).

136 –

was domestic, although it showed many wild characters, and its skull belonged to a primitive type, close to thatof the wolf (BÖKÖNYI, 1992: 219)159. The dog was killed and butchered in another area of the site.

2) Layers b, d, f, h and i are organogenic. Amongst them d, f and h were loose, greyish thin deposits containingmuch ash and charcoal, while layers b and i were composed of yellow clay with spots of black soil. The lowestfour layers yielded many freshwater molluscs. The soil of the lowest deposit (layer i) was greyish-yellowishwith charcoal, ash and small particles of fired cay. The number of freshwater molluscs from the lowest fourlayers (d, f, h and i) remained undefined, although it undoubtedly exceeded a few hundreds. Most of thembelonged to the above-mentioned Lymnea stagnalis, which lives in river freshwaters, and fewer toPlanorbarius corneus and Discus ruderatus. The first currently inhabits the Hungarian Plain rivers, while thesecond was present in the Hungarian Plain during the Early Holocene, while at present it is characteristic onlyfor the mountain regions, such as the Mátra Mountains160.

3) The thin layers a, c, e and g contained hard, clay deposits with no man-made artefacts.According to S. BÖKÖNYI (1992: 198) the animal bones of this sacrificial pit consisted of a cattle rib fragment,

an ovicaprine left, proximal, radius fragment, and the dog skull, two mandible halves, an atlas, an axis, 5 cervical, 7thoracic, and 4 lumbar vertebrae, the os sacrum, and 4 ribs as well as a wild duck os coracoideum161. This samplewas the only exception of the site fauna, which was composed of food remains in addition to butchering debris.

During the excavations it was not clear whether the three alternate layers of freshwater molluscs (h, f and d)and clay (layers e and g) belonged to the same ceremony, together with those from the lowest layer (i), or theycontained material from different sacrifices that took place over a longer period. Otherwise the time span duringwhich the sacrificial pit was open might have been short. If it lasted a few months or a year, the mouth of the pitwas probably covered by planks, which left no traces in the archaeological record. Nevertheless, the uppermostclay layer a, and the underlying grey layer b, testify that the lower part of the fill was formerly covered, while theremains of the fish sacrifice were deposited on their top. The character of this ceremony differs very much fromthe first blood sacrifices: dog in the lowest layer, fish in the uppermost one (MAKKAY, 1989a: 247)162.

After completing the excavation of Pit 5 and sacrificial Pit A1, further works were carried out in Trenches 3and 17 in order to uncover Pit 4 and sacrificial Pit A2 (figs. 80-82). The outlines of Pit 4 were not clear aftercleaning at a depth of some 65-70 cm. Nevertheless its loose, grey fill could be easily separated because itcontained many potsherds and animal bones. The finds from the arbitrary layer between 30 and 60 cmundoubtedly belong to this assemblage and were kept separately. Sporadic Late Bronze Age finds were collectedfrom the humus above its eastern end, at a depth of 30-60 cm. They can be probably related to grave 14 in Trench52 (MAKKAY, 1992: 134 and Pl. 34, 2-4)163. The fill of Pit 4 partly covered the sacrificial Pit A2, which isprobably contemporaneous with Pit 4.

Pit 4 was irregular (fig. 80, and section E-F in fig. 82). From the bottom to the top it contained the followinglayers: 1) 194-150/120 cm: sooty, loose, black soil, partly heavily burnt, 2) 150/120-110 cm: brown loose fill, 3)110-70 cm: very hard, grey, ashy deposit, 4) 70-40 cm: unploughed black soil and 5) 40-0 cm: ploughed, black soil.The pit had four large inner depressions. The southern and western ones, at a depth of 110-120 cm, containedburnt layers, which were probably short-time hearths.

A discolouration was discovered during the cleaning of the eastern part of Pit 4 below the hard, grey, ashy layer of the fill (the lowermost, brown loose fill was not present in this part of the structure). It was oblong, extendingtowards the east (a 2x2 m extension was opened to recover it). Neither the undisturbed black soil, nor the hard greybeneath it (between 70 and 110 cm) showed any intrusion. Therefore sacrificial Pit A2 was excavated before thebackfill of the pit came to an end, although it was probably dug after opening the refuse pit. Also the arbitrary layersbetween 40-80 cm and 60-100 cm, in the eastern extension, above the eastern end of the pit, containing much Körös pottery, did not show any sign of later disturbance. The uppermost part of the 3 m long and 1 m wide shaft-like pit1.3 m deep from its opening, at the bottom of the refuse pit, or Schlitze (MAKKAY, 1989a: 243 and 244 and figs.1-4), was undoubtedly closed by the loose, black layer e (=B) (fig. 82, section A-B). The thin-layered depositsbelow it were present in the narrowing lower part of the shaft. Layers d (beneath e) and also b (the second from the

159. About the occurrence of skeletons of sacrificed dogs in Neolithic houses see MAKKAY (1988: 14, note 43). For the sacrifices of dogs in the Late

Neolithic see ZALAI-GAÁL (1995).160. Kind identification by Dr. E. Krolopp, Budapest (MAKKAY, 1989a: 244 and 245).161. BÖKÖNYI (1992) did not indicate where these bones were found inside the sacrificial pit, except for the dog skull. They were probably associated with it.162. For the temporary closing of the sacrificial pits see MAKKAY (1988: 15 and notes 53 and 54). According to some Ba’al texts, the New Year ceremony

included also the opening of the ceremonial pit to pour libation into it: “the opening-up of the ceremonial pit: remove the plank on the closed pit. Theplank (dpr) is removed from the sacrificial-refuse pit, the regular cultus being thereby instituted”.

163. The grave is represented unnumbered in the general map, southwest of sacrificial Pit A7 (fig. 73).

– 137

Fig. 78 - Endrõd, site 3/119. 1: Vessel in Trench 14, belonging to House 1 (P.131.480). 2: Pit 5 in the process of excavation from the north. To the right: thelower layer of the burnt debris of House 1 (P.131.471). 3: Árpádian Graves 5 and 6 (P.131.470). 4: Grave 9 in Trench 19, near to Pit 9 (P.132.894). 5: Pit 9 in Trench 19 after full cleaning, taken from the west (P.132.896).

138 –

Fig. 79 - Endrõd, site 3/119. 1: Grave 13 in Trench 41 (P.146.610). 2: Grave 9 in Trench 19. 3: Grave 10 in Pit 13 in Trench 37 (D.26.479). 4: Graves 1-4in Trench 10.

– 139

bottom) were composed of yellow clay, mixed with dark soil lumps and organic remains. At least fifteen thin, ashlevels (c), sloping towards the E-W central line of the shaft, were noticed in the northern part of the structure,between the above-mentioned two clay layers. The lowermost six were contained in a humic clay fill, while theupper nine into pure clay. Nevertheless they were easy to distinguish from both their covering clay layer and alsofrom each other. The fill of the six deeper organic deposits yielded Körös potsherds, a few sheep bones, and a fewfragments of Lymnea stagnalis, while that of the very thin bottom was a loose black soil (a).

Its cultural attribution is based on the presence of scattered Körös sherds. Its relationship with Pit 4 is not veryclear although the two features might be contemporaneous. The sacrificial Pit A2 is undoubtedly not earlier than Pit4. They might represent two succeeding short phases of the same building process. The six different moments of the sacrificial pit-fill can be reconstructed as follows: 1) black soil of the lowermost 10-15 cm thick depression. Itprobably represents a short, erosional period that occurred when the shaft was open. The clay fill above it (b) mightindicate another possibility. The sacrificial pits, yellow clay layers often cover black deposits, which are theremains of organic sacrifices as, for example, primitiae i.e. first fruits, 2) deposition of the virgin clay in layer b, 3and 4) followed by the deposition of the six, and shortly after it, the nine thin organic layers with their alternateyellow clay levels, 5) covering by a sterile, clay deposit, and finally 5) loose, black fill (B or e) that seals the deposit.

The ceremony, of unknown purpose and character, might have consisted of two main parts, respectivelyrepresented by layers 1-2 and 3-5, after which the pit was closed.

During the 1987 Bylany seminar (see MAKKAY, 1989a), it was suggested that the thin layers c, and also theclay layers b and d, might derive from a natural erosion, which deposited alternate black and yellow layers from thesurface surrounding the pit. Nevertheless, the sacrificial finds from other similar shaft-like pits or shafts discoveredat this site contradict this impression. Fireplace F1 represented the above-mentioned, southernmost part of Pit 4.

The extension Trench 18 (5x5 m) was opened west of Trench 4. Except for one sherd concentration in itssoutheastern corner (S1 on the general map of fig. 73), it yielded very few Neolithic remains. It seems that, westof House 1, between Houses 1 and 2, there was an empty zone, for different daily activities. This fact is supported by the presence of very few Körös artefacts and the absence of features in the area of Trenches 8, 18, 47 and 48(the unnumbered trench between 8 and 48 has not been excavated).

The arbitrary layer between 40-70 cm, in Trench 18, was very poor in Körös pottery. It yielded only onefeature: the Árpádian oven O1. Close to its outer wall, a characteristic ALP incised fragment (not representedin fig. 142)164 was found, at a depth of some 70 cm, in association with Körös Culture sherds (see Chapter 15.)and one characteristic coarse Szatmár ceramic fragments. These pieces belonged to the above-mentionedconcentration around S1, near the south wall of Trench 18. They can be attributed to a late Körös Culture phase without any Protovinèa type.

The Early Árpádian cemetery Graves 5-8 and 10 were excavated in the wider area of Pit 5 (fig. 74).The last 1986 excavation was that of Pit 9 and the Neolithic Grave 9 in Trench 19 (figs. 74; 78, 4 and 5 and

83). The eastern edge of this pit had already been discovered in the westernmost parts of Trenches 12 and 16 (firedclay fragments and one complete stone axe: fig. 86, 6)165. Trench 19 was opened as an extension for its fullunderstanding. Many undisturbed Körös pottery fragments were found in the arbitrary layer between 40 and 50 cm. After cleaning at this depth, it became clear that the outlines of this pit extended outside Trench 19, both north andsouth of it. The excavation of the fill continued until the two extensions reached the same depth. The outlines of thepit were visible after cleaning at 80-85 cm. They showed a loose, brown soil towards its western edge, with muchash and Körös pottery in its centre. The grey, ashy layer extended to the north, beyond the pit edge.

Grave 9: the skeleton was found in a greyish ashy layer, 10-25 cm thick, above a yellowish, sterile subsoil. It waslying on its right side, in a very crouched position, with the face down, in a north-northwest/south-southeast direction(figs. 78, 4 and 83). The left arm was pulled up and bent at the elbow joint, with the phalanges of the left hand belowthe face. The right forearm was shifted from its original position. The right femur lay below the left femur and tibia,while the bone of the right ankle was found beneath the left ankle joint. Several bones, among which are the right andleft tibia, the right femur, and bones of the right forearm are fragmented. This damage may have occurred when thecentral part of the skeleton was displayed on a deposit softer than the one around it. This fact led to think that thecorresponding parts of the vertebral column and the rest of the skeleton had sunk. No grave goods were found.

The ashy layer yielded a rich pottery assemblage, mainly in the centre of the pit (fig. 83, section A-B). Theburnt wall fragments of a clay, ruined oven were found in its southeastern part. It had been built on the virginsoil, and its fragments had sunk towards the centre. Its shape and dimensions could not be defined. The wall

164. MAKKAY (1987: Abb. 4,4, with typical Körös sherds in the context on the same Abb. 4, 3-8).165. STARNINI and SZAKMÁNY (1998: fig. 4, 1), from diabase or gabbro, found between 30 and 60 cm, supposedly belonging to House 1 or to the fill of Pit 9.

140 –

fragments were 7-8 cm wide, with a finely smoothed inner surface, and a rough, outer one. They all werehomogeneously red due to burning, and their structure did not contain any wattle. Most of the ash from thislayer can be correlated with the utilisation of the oven.

Also the layer between 130-150 cm was ashy. It was present only in the central part of the pit, near the(supposed) oven, and it is undoubtedly connected with its use. It was possible to notice a difference betweenthe two ashy layers, because the lower was composed of a pure, white ash, while the upper contained smalldarker particles. It yielded a rich artefact assemblage with almost complete vessels and at least fivereconstructible pots (fig. 84, 1-5). They were kept and used in this central part of the pit when the ovencollapsed, and they were probably used for daily kitchen work. The oven wall fragments and also large andheavy net-weights collapsed and buried them. One clay stamp-seal (fig. 83, left) was found at their top. Thelowest layer of the fill predates the oven, as supported by the absence of ash.

Fig. 80 - Endrõd, site 3/119. Plan of Pit 4 in Trenches 3+17, with sacrificial Pit A2, section C-D and fireplace F1. For sections E-F and A-B see fig. 82.

– 141

The finds from Pit 9 are represented by the head of a lion figurine, most probably of a lion-shaped vessel (fig. 67,3 and 83; MAKKAY, 1988a: fig. 4), a complete clay stamp seal with typical zigzag decoration on its face (MAKKAY,

1984: figs. I, 5 and IV, 1, 4-6, 8-10, etc.; 2005), a fragmented rod-headed statuette, and the left half of the lower part ofa big steatopygous female figurine. The first three were discovered in the uppermost ashy layer, and the last in the ashy fill below. Other parts of the lion figurine (one fragmented paw) were found during the last 1989 season.

7.1.3. The 1987 season (Trenches 20-32)

Pit 10, in Trenches 20-24, is the first feature discovered during the second season. They were opened west of Pit 4, south of the empty Trench 18, along the southern edge of the central part of the small site (figs. 73; 85 and 86, 3-5).Surface finds were relatively rare in this part of the site. The fill of Pit 10 was excavated below 40 cm in two portions,first in Trenches 20-21 and later 22-23/24. A baulk was retained between them and its profile was drawn (fig. 85,section C-C1). The baulk was later removed and its finds were collected according to their respective depths.

The work started in Trenches 20 (4x4 m) and 21 (4x4 m). The first undisturbed finds were recovered at adepth of 30 cm, mainly in the northwestern corner of Trench 21. The arbitrary layer between 30 and 60 cmcontained a rich Körös pottery assemblage. It included an almost complete vessel with a broken rim, foundupside down, in a grey, dry, ashy layer. The cleaning, at a depth of 60 cm, did not clearly show the outlines of thepit and the arbitrary layer between 60 and 90 cm was further excavated. The southern part near the baulk, yieldedmuch pottery and animal bones, in a grey, ashy layer (fig. 85, section C- C1), in the central part of the pit. Below 90cm the recovery continued in the pit, i.e. the arbitrary layer between 90 and 120 cm. Below the ashy layer there wasa sterile, loose, brown fill mixed with yellow clay lumps. The virgin soil, covered by a greyish-yellowish layer, wasreached at a depth of some 130 cm. The deepest part of the pit was found further to the south. An eastern extension

Fig. 81 - Endrõd, site 3/119. 1: Section of sacrificial Pit A2 taken from the west (P.132.333). 2: The eastern part of the fill in sacrificial Pit A2 in theextension of Trench 17 (P.132.336).

142 –

was opened because the pit extended also eastwards (Trench 24: 3x7 m, and Trenches 22-23: 4x4 m). Later, aprofile of the northern side of the baulk was drawn between Trenches 20-21 and 22-24 (fig. 85, section C- C1).

The edge of the pit was found to the east, at a depth of 90 cm, although the ashy layer continued further tothe east in a greyish cultural layer, just above the virgin soil. To the south, the largest concentration wasobserved near the baulk, in the pit centre. It was surprisingly small and shallow compared with other KörösCulture refuse pits, although it contained a characteristic fill with an upper, ashy, grey layer with several finds,

Fig. 82 - Endrõd, site 3/119. Section E-F of Pit 4 in Trench 17 from the east with section A-B of sacrificial Pit A2 from the west.

– 143

Fig. 83 - Endrõd, site 3/119. Plan and section A-B of Pit 9 and Grave 9 in Trench 19 with important finds found in the pit (D.23.411, 26.503). For the lionhead see also fig. 67, 3.

144 –

Fig. 84 - Endrõd, site 3/119. 1-5: Reconstructed vessels from Pit 9, the ashy layer between 130-150 cm. 6: Stone axe from Trench 16, belonging to Pit 9 orHouse 1 (after STARNINI and SZAKMÁNY, 1998: fig. 4, 1).

– 145

Fig. 85 - Endrõd, site 3/119. Trenches 21-23: plan and section C-C1 of Pit 10 from the south and section A-A1 of Oven O4.

146 –

Fig. 86 - Endrõd, site 3/119. 1: A-A section of the posthole (2) in the northern part of Trench 26 from the SW (unnumbered in the general map; P.135.237;D.24.449). 3: Concentration of sherds in Trenches 22-23/70 cm from the south, near Pit 10 (P.135.231). 4: Pit 10 from the west with Oven O4 to the right(P.135.229). 5: Oven O4 in Trenches 22-23, south of Pit 10, from the west (P.135.232).

– 147

Fig. 87 - Endrõd, site 3/119. Plan of Trenchs 25-26 with the position of the posthole sacrifice (Pit 4) and Oven O5, and with section G-G of Pit 11 on thebaulk between Trenchs 26 and 28.

148 –

Fig. 88 - Endrõd, site 3/119. 1: Pit 1 in the northern part of Trench 27 with burnt lumps of wattle-and-daub (P.135.170). 2: Pit or Posthole 5 in Trench 26from the south (P.135.241). 3: Depression in the southern part of Trench 25 with fired clay from the SE (P.135.235). 4: House 5 in Trench 26 from WNW(P.135.177). 5-6: Pit 4 (of the posthole sacrifice) in process of excavation from the NW (6: P.135.238) and excavated from the SE (5: P.135.238).

– 149

Fig. 89 - Endrõd, site 3/119. 1: Section E-E of Pit 5 in Trench 26. 2-3: Pits 1 and 2 in Trench 27, plan and section A-B.

150 –

Fig. 90 - Endrõd, site 3/119. 1: Fragments of the large container in situ in Trench 25 (P.135.234). 2: Reconstructed container (P.148.798). 3: Stratigraphy ofPit 4 of the posthole sacrifice with the large container in situ (corrected version of MAKKAY, 2002). 4: The snake representation on the lower part of the large container (detail of 2; P.148.796).

– 151

Fig. 91 - Endrõd, site 3/119. 1: The snake representation on the lower part of the large container (fig. 90, 2). 2: Crusted red painted clay box reconstructedfrom sherds found in Trench 45/SE, 30-80 cm and Trench 40/30-60 cm (drawing by S. Õsy).

152 –

Fig. 92: Endrõd, site 3/119. 1: House 2 in Trench 29, detail of the surface with fired clay and broken vessel no. 12 (P.135.159). 2: House 2 in Trenches 31 (in theforeground), 29 (in the middle) and 27 in the upper right corner, taken from SSW. The house is in left upper part of the photograph; a posthole in the northern part ofTrench 27 can be seen in top middle (P.135.180). 3: Surface of House 2 in Trenches 27-28 and 31 from the south; Trench 31 and House 5 are to the left (P.135.183). 4:Remains of House 2 in Trench 27 taken from the north, with broken vessels and Pit 1 (P.135.242). 5: Vessel “c” of House 2 in Trench 27 from the NE (P.135.243).

– 153

Fig. 93 - Endrõd, site 3/119. 1: Section of the southern wall of Trench 26. Left: Pit 11 cutting Pit 12 (to the right). P.135.240. 2: Pit 2 in Trenches 25-26(D.24.440). 3: The southern wall of Trench 29 from WNW (P.135.129). 4: Pit 1 in Trenches 25-26, section B-B (D.24.439). 5: Section made on the southern wall of Trench 29 with fired clay lumps of House 2 beneath the ploughed soil (D.24.446).

154 –

Fig. 94 - Endrõd, site 3/119. 1: The northern end in Trench 29 from SSW, with surface remains of House 2 and House 5 (top left; P.135.173). 2: Detail of theremains of House 2 (P.135.152). 3: House 2 in Trench 29 with fragments of vessel 5 amongst wattle-and-daub (P.135.153). 4-6: House 2 in Trench 29 withvessel fragments (P.136.160, P.135.154, P.135.162). 7-8: Net-weights of House 2 in Trench 29 from the South (7: P.135.148; 8: P.135.174).

– 155

Fig. 95 - Endrõd, site 3/119. 1: Clay figurine of a Syren from the first gable of House 2 found in the house rubbish in Trench 29, Middle, 45-50 cm(P.144.144). 2: Relief female represetantion from House 2 in Trench 29/50 cm (P.141.146; after MAKKAY, 2001: fig. 9, 1). 3: Fragment of a face vessel fromPit 12, 130-150 cm (P.141.166) (after MAKKAY, 1992: pl. 30, 2). 4: Black shiny polished carinated bowl from the rubbish of House 2/Middle, 50-60 cm(after MAKKAY, 1992, pl. 1, 2).

156 –

Fig. 96- Endrõd, site 3/119. 1-3: Oven O5 in Trenches 28 and 55. 1: Section from the west. 2: Section from the east. 3: Trench 28 with Oven O5 from thewest (P.135.188).

– 157

and a lower one with a brownish fill and less cultural remains, among which were many animal bones andpotsherds. Burnt wattle-and-daub fragments were recovered between 30/35 and 60 cm close to its westernedge. Below the arbitrary layer 60-90 cm, the virgin yellow clay was reached at a depth of 100 cm, while in thesoutheastern corner, outside the pit, a concentration of large pottery fragments and animal bones was found ata depth of some 70 cm, one above the other, on an irregular surface of 1.5 sq m (fig. 86, 3). It was impossible todefine whether this find spot represented the remains of a cultural layer into which the pit had been excavatedor this latter structure was older than the layer itself.

The bottom pit layers, between 60-90 cm and 90-130 cm, were identical to those of Trenches 20-21. The deepestpart of the pit was eastwards, down to some 170 cm. A small clay oven built on the Neolithic surface was found westof this potsherds concentration (O4 in the general map of fig. 73 and also fig. 86, 4 and 5). It was interpreted as aÁrpádian feature although its characteristics and the discovery circumstances might attribute it to the Early Neolithic.

Trench 25 (8x4 m) was opened west of Trenches 21 and 23. The first arbitrary layer was excavated to adepth of 30-60 cm after removing the ploughed soil (figs. 87; 88, 3, 5 and 6; 90, 1-4 and 91). Large, firedwattle-and-daub fragments attributable to the debris of House 2 were found in the middle part, near the easternwall between 40 and 45 cm. They were embedded into an unburnt, yellow clay deposit. A dry, loose soil wasfound in the northern part of the trench, indicating the presence of the Árpádian horse Grave 12 attributable tothe second half of the X century AD (fig. 73). The western part of the Árpádian oven O3 was discovered nearthe eastern baulk. Its eastern part had already been recorded in Trench 21.

The fragments of a large container were found below 30 cm, in the northwestern corner of Trench 25. Itsupper parts had been disturbed by ploughing and loosening. Large, burnt clay fragments were recovered northand northwest of it, at a depth of 30-50 cm. They belonged to the wall and/or roof of House 2 and the large vessel.Before its excavation, a sample was taken for sieving. On the other side of this vessel, there were large yellowlumps of fine clay deliberately deposited, because the virgin clay was not present at this depth. The cleaningsouth of the vessel, at a depth at 90 cm, showed that the yellow clay belonged to a posthole, south of the large jar.The entire feature can be reconstructed as follows (figs. 88, 5 and 6; 90 and 91) (MAKKAY, 2002): the postholebelonged to House 2 and most probably marked the position of a strong post in its northeastern corner. The fill ofthe posthole consists of two parts: inside a 70 to 80 cm hole, a 40 cm wide posthole had been excavated. It wasvisible on the scraped surface by a dark-grey ashy fill. When the post was erected, a packing of pure yellow claywas made to hold its base. This clay was very different from the virgin soil and was probably intentionallylevigated166. The post-pit was later widened towards the northwest to a depth of 60-65 cm and a large jar wasdeposited in a standing position (the bottom of the jar was found, undisturbed, at this depth) or, as became clearduring the cleaning, it was placed next to the posthole in a slightly oblique position.

The ritual character of this feature is supported by the unique decoration on the lower part of the jar.Besides the unusual admixture of characteristic Körös motifs (fingernail pinching, incisions, barbotine) inseveral panels (fig. 91, 1), the representation of two (or more?) twisting snakes can be noticed. This scene is aunique, symbolic representation of this culture and the Early Neolithic decorative repertoire in general. Thelower part of the vessel shows additional motifs below the barbotine decoration that covers the belly andprobably also the upper part. They include a network of straight, incised lines and a horizontal band offingernail pinches below it. This latter forms a curved line, the first part of which is slightly wider and longer,indicating the head. This is the representation of two or more snakes. These signs seem to demonstrate that thevessel was part of a particular posthole ritual (MAKKAY, 1992: 123), a deposition sacrifice in the corner of thenewly built House 2 (MAKKAY, 1975; 1979; 1983; 1986; 1988; 1989a and 1992a).

House 2 was found in Trenches 25-33 and 41. Its supposed squared structure was most probably N-Soriented. It was characterised by house rubbles (burnt wattle-and-daub fragments, fired clay clumps,impressed timber and twigs wall fragments, large net-weights, conjoining ceramic potsherds) at a depth of30-60 cm (figs. 92; 93, 5; 94; 95, 1-4 and 98, 1, 5, and 6). This layer was heavily damaged by tillage. Thepostholes found in these trenches (figs. 86, 1 and 2; 87; 88, 1, 2, 5 and 6; 89, 1-3 and 93, 4) and in Trenches34/1989 (fig. 99, 2) and 41/1989 (fig. 73, unnumbered pits in the southern part of the trench) is most probablypart of the external features of this house. No fireplaces were found inside the building, although Oven O5, and ash-Pit P11, in Trenches 26 and 28, probably belonged to this structure (figs. 93, 1 and 96, 1-3).

Oven O5 (fig. 96, 1-3), excavated into the sterile soil, was divided in two halves, the first almost 0.5 mhigher than the other. Its walls were plastered with clay and burnt red. It is attributable to the Körös Culture. It

166. See the ancient custom of using river clay during the Hittite and earlier Yamna-Pit grave ceremonies (MAKKAY, 1992a: 217, 223, 226, notes 32, 33, 57, 58 and 74).

158 –

Fig. 97 - Endrõd, site 3/119. 1: Plan of Trench 29 and A-A section of its western wall. 2: Plan of Trench 27 and B-B section of the eastern wall of Trench 29.Both sections represent the respective part of Pit 12.

– 159

Fig. 98 - Endrõd, site 3/119. 1: The northern wall of Trench 32 on the baulk between Trenches 29 and 30, representing the section of Pit 12 from the SSW,with the rubbish layer of House 2 on the top (P.135.200-201). 2: Trench 29 from the north, with Pit 12 on the top (P.135.128). 3: Trench 32 from ENE withPit 12 (P.135.203). 4: Trench 32 from WNW with Pit 12 (P.135.202). 5: The western wall of Trench 29 with debris of House 2 and Pit 12 below(P.135.208). 6: Southern part of the west wall of Trench 29 with layer of House 2 (left) and House 5 (right). P.135.209. 7: Trench 29 from NNW with Pit 12in the back and large animal burrowings in the front (P.135.127). 8: The southern wall of Trench 30 from WNW with Pit 12 in the front (P.135.130).

160 –

Fig. 99 - Endrõd, site 3/119. 1: Plan of Pit 12. 2: Reconstructed large bowl found in the deepest part of Pit 12 in Trench 33 and in Pit or Posthole 2 in Trench34 (after MAKKAY, 1992: Pl. 36, 1).

– 161

was not completely excavated although its remains were left in their original position for further work. Itsprofiles were drawn in 1987 and 1989.

House 2 was destroyed by fire and some of its internal installations were in situ at the time of its destruction.This is demonstrated by 13 partly restored vessels (figs. 92, 4 and 5; 94, 1-6 and 95, 4) and many net-weights foundin several clusters within the ruins (fig. 94, 7 and 8). It is probable that the large, restored jar, discovered in thenorthwestern corner of Trench 25 (figs. 90 and 91), had been placed into a sacrificial posthole. Pit 2, in Trench 34,was probably another posthole of House 2 (fig. 99, 1 and 2). It is important to point out that a few fragments of alarge, coarse bowl (fig. 99, 2) were placed in its upper part, while other sherds of the same vessel were collectedfrom Trench 33, at the bottom of Pit 12, most probably related with sacrificial Pit A5. The sherds stood vertically inthe sterile soil along the western wall of Pit 12 or in the westernmost part of sacrificial Pit A5 (fig. 103, 4).

If posthole 2 in Trench 34 belonged to House 2167, this habitation was partly contemporaneous with Pit 12and/or with sacrificial Pit A5. House 2 did not last longer than one season. It overlapped with the beginning of the deposition process of Pit 12 and it later existence probably also with Pit 13. This demonstrates that more than onepit was simultaneously utilised by the two houses. The fragments of one single small vessel were found amongstthe debris of House 2 and Pit 10 (MAKKAY, 1992: Pl. 26, 17). This suggests that Pit 10, very close to the easternside of House 2, was (partly) contemporaneous with House 2 and, consequently, also with part of the refilling ofPit 12. At the same time House 2 covered most of Pit 12, at least in Trenches 27-30 (fig. 98, 1 and 2). Thesuggested chronological sequence is shown in table 13 at the end of this chapter.

The building technique, shape (fig. 99, 1), inner constructions and furniture of House 2 are unknown because of the intensive soil loosening. Its outlines, between 30 and 60 cm, were marked by wall and roof fragments,represented by fired and unfired yellow clay lumps mixed with potsherds, net-weights, bone tools, figurines andother implements (figs. 95, 1-4, and 104, 3). One of the most remarkable pieces is the above-mentioned,bird-headed female figurine (fig. 95, 1). In the southern part of Trench 25, there was a shallow depression ofunknown function filled with burnt wattle-and-daub fragments, which undoubtedly belonged to the house. Itwas, perhaps, a collapsed oven or a plastered fireplace (fig. 87, fireplace F2 and section D-D).

Parts of the habitation remains were found undisturbed in several parts of Trenches 25-29. Other parts ofthe house rubble had been disturbed by later features, as for instance House 5, attributed to the Late BronzeAge Tumulus Culture (figs. 88, 4; 92, 2 and 3; 94, 1 and 98, 6). It was cut into the fill of Pit P15 of the same age. Grave 14, in Trench 52 (unnumbered in the general map: fig. 116, 3 and 4) with three grave vessels, might becontemporaneous to this house (MAKKAY, 1992: Pl. 43, 4, and 36, 2-4). Oven 3 (fig. 73) can be attributed tothe Árpádian period. Traces of stamped or mud plaster were not found both in House 2 and below theundisturbed rubble parts. All, or some of the above-mentioned postholes, most probably belonged to the innerpart and roof of the house. They were made for posts with an average diameter of 20-25 cm, approximatelyN-S oriented. One (Pit 4 in Trench 25, namely the sacrificial posthole of fig. 90, 3) showed traces of a tight,clay packing 50 cm below the present-day surface. If this packing was made to fill the posthole for holding thebase of the post below the house floor, the earthen floor was at the same depth. The occurrence of house debrisat 30-50 cm, and sometimes in small depressions down to 60 cm, supports this view. The discoveries made inthe southern part of Trench 31 point to the same conclusion: an unburnt yellow clay layer was found here at adepth of some 50 cm, deposited above the buried soil during the first house building stage.

During the cleaning of the house rubble, sherd concentrations were discovered and separately packed(figs. 92, 4 and 5 and 94, 1-8). Letter ‘a’ refers to a small miniature vessel, ‘b’ is a pedestalled bowl, whilegroup ‘c’ indicates three or more net-weights and fragments of large vessels. Group ‘d’ was found above aposthole containing potsherds of at least three different vessels, one fragment with a goat plastic representation and one broken tripod altar. Groups of freshwater molluscs were occasionally found close to the finelypolished, black-pedestalled bowl (fig. 95, 4; MAKKAY, 1992: Pl. 1, 1).

The outlines of Pit 11 were found during the cleaning in the southeastern part of Trench 26. Another part was later discovered in Trench 25, while its southern extension was in Trench 28 (figs. 73 and 93, 1). Its dark fill, cut into theeastern part of the large refuse Pit 12, contained much ash. In the southeastern corner of Trench 28, at the edge of Pit11, a very loose, ashy fill was found in the eastern part of the south trench wall. After cleaning, it showed the openingof a domed oven of a probable squared shape, with a heavily burnt floor and inner walls 50 cm high. For technicalreasons it was impossible to excavate it, and only a cross section was made in both directions (fig. 96, 1-3). During the

167. As, for instance, the posthole of a column standing in front of the southern edge of House 1 excludes that the potsherds of the large, coarse bowl werereused for holding the base of a post in a later phase.

162 –

Fig. 100 - Endrõd, site 3/119. Sacrificial Pit A3 in Trench 31, plan and sections A and B (drawing by R. Gläser).

– 163

Fig. 101 - Endrõd, site 3/119. Sacrificial Pit A4 in Trenches 31 and 35. 1: Vessel in sacrificial Pit A4. 2-3: The pitcher in the sacrificial pit (P.135.178 andP.135.181). 4: Section A-B of the sacrificial Pit A4. 5: Detail of the pitcher: repair on the vessel inner bottom (drawings by E. Starnini).

164 –

Fig. 102 - Endrõd, site 3/119. 1: Section A-A of the northern wall of Trench 32 in Pit 12. 2: Plan of Trench 32. 3: Section A-A of the eastern wall of Trench31, showing Pit 12 (D.24.471). 4: Section B-B of the western wall of Trench 31, with sacrificial Pit A4 on the left.

– 165

Fig. 103 - Endrõd, site 3/119. 1-4: Plan and sections of sacrificial Pit A5 in Trench 33 and its relation with Pit 12 (4).

166 –

Fig. 104 - Endrõd, site 3/119. Fragments of clay horns of consecration from different features. 1-2: Trench 11/House 1 in the upper, grey ashy layer(P.144.141-144.142). 3: Trench 33/Middle, House 2, 30-50 cm (P.164.002). 4: Pit 12 in Trench 29/90-120 cm (P.164.002).

– 167

last 1989 season, Trench 55 was opened east and south of it. Nevertheless, for the above reasons, the oven remained unexcavated. Another trench was opened from the east (fig. 96, 2). The oven, and the few potsherds from its fill,belong to the Körös Culture, because its floor is well below the Árpádian ones168. The dark dry fill of Pit 11, inTrenches 26 and 28, contained much ash from this oven. It yielded Körös fragments associated with one single,decorated ALP sherd, which was impossible to recover during the restoration and preservation works.

The excavation carried out after the cleaning and removing of the debris of House 2, in the southern part ofTrenches 29 and 30, between 30 and 60 cm, yielded a large refuse pit, rich in finds, partly below the houselayer and partly south of it (Pit 12).

It was uncovered in Trenches 26-33 and 36/1987-1988 (figs. 99 and also 93, 1; 98, 1-5, 7 and 8; 102, 1-3; 103 and104, 3). Its finds were easy to separate from those from House 2, because this latter partly lay above it. The samedistinction was made also on the basis of the colour and characteristics of the layers at 60 cm of depth (burnt redrubble, fired wattle-and-daub, unburnt yellow clay lumps and well-defined clusters of sherds and net-weights in thehouse layer, grey ashy fill in the pit) (figs. 93, 1 and 3; 97, 1 and 2, sections A-A and A-B; 98, 2, 4-8 and 102, 1 and 3).The finds from these structures were packed separately. Most of the house remains were contained in a burnt layer ofwattle-and-daub, at a depth of 30-40 cm. The house rubble was in the baulk between Trenches 30 and 32 at a depth of40-50 cm. They most probably marked the southernmost part of the structure (fig. 102, 1 and 2). The profile betweenTrenches 32/1987 and 33/1988 was destroyed by ploughing at the end of 1987. The parts of Pit 12 uncovered inTrench 33 during the 1988 season, could not be conjoined to the already excavated ones, although there was noevidence that they belonged to different features. The artefacts from Trench 33 and Trench 36 were kept separately.

Sacrificial Pit A5 (figs. 73; 103 and 106, 1-3) was opened, probably secondarily, into the southern edge of Pit 12 shortly after the excavation of this part of the pit, i.e. before its complete refilling. However the relationshipsbetween sacrificial Pit A3 (fig. 100), and Pit 12 are not clear.

During the excavation of the arbitrary layer between 30 and 60 cm, in Trench 31, a some 1 m long, loosedeposit was observed in the south profile, near the baulk between Trenches 31 and 35. The cleaning of Trench 31, at 60 cm, showed the outline of a pit containing much ash (sacrificial Pit A4: fig. 101 and 102, 4) and anotherposthole with red burnt wattle-and-daub fragments, close to the southeastern corner of the trench (unnumberedon the general map). This latter was one of the southernmost postholes of House 2.

Sacrificial Pit A3 (fig. 100: Pit 4 in Trench 31) was discovered in the southern part of Trench 31. Thecleaning, at a depth of 90 cm, showed the outline of a long, narrow pit, 220 cm deep, already visible at a depthof some 60 cm, containing a hard black or dark brown fill, opened from the top of the Neolithic surface. Itslowest part was very narrow, some 20-25 cm wide, and contained the disarticulated bones of a sheep and itsskull169. The two profiles (fig. 100: A-A and B-B) show different depositional processes. B-B, near thesouthern end, is composed of thin, alternate levels of organic black and yellow clay with a dark homogenousfill in between. The sheep bones were found in the lowermost layer of the north half. The burnt clay lumps, inthe uppermost part of the structure, belonged to the house debris. This suggests that it was sealed when House2 was built above it. The structure can be attributed to the Körös Culture: it was most probably connected withsome religious performance related to the house construction.

Sacrificial Pit A4, first numbered Pit 3 in Trench 31, was found at the edge of Trenches 31/1987 and 35/1988below the profile wall (figs. 101 and 102, 4). Its western part was destroyed by agricultural activities in the winter of 1987. The upper part of a large vessel was found at a depth of 75 cm from the surface. Its rim was missing becausethe ploughing disturbed the upper part of the handled pitcher (fig. 101, 1 and 2). It originally stood vertically in thepit bottom in a 1-2 cm thick yellow clay layer covering also its lower body170, which later slightly leaned towardsthe north. This vessel probably postdates the 3 m narrow ashy pit or shaft, because it was later deposited into thesacrificial pit. The cleaning of the pit showed that the pitcher lay at the top of a 5 cm sequence of alternate yellowclay and brown layers, which suggest that it belonged to the last, pit deposit. The pit opening was at a depth 35-40cm from the living floor around House 2; therefore, sacrificial Pit A4 was excavated during the building or use ofthe house. The centre of the lower part of the pitcher contained one complete, cylindrical, typical Körös net-weight(fig. 101, 4). It also yielded a few animal bones and other characteristic Körös potsherds.

There are no further indications of the sacrificial character of this feature. A crack is visible in the inner partof this vessel with repairing traces (fig. 101, 5) along the wide break. This bottom probably cracked during the

168. It is erroneously described as an Árpádian oven in the 1987 field notes (p. 12, etc.).169. BÖKÖNYI (1992) did not provide us with any data on these bones.170. From this point of view see the thin clay layer covering the pit bottom and the deposited vessels at Endrõd 3/39, House in Trench XX.

168 –

Fig. 105 - Endrõd, site 3/119. 1-2: Plan and section A-B of Pit 13.

– 169

Fig. 106 - Endrõd, site 3/119. 1: Pit 12 with sacrificial Pit A5 from the west in Trench 33. 2 and 4: Sacrificial Pit A5 taken from the SW. Section E-F (seealso fig. 103, 2) with the core of a cattle horn, not represented on the drawing (P.142.789-142.790). 3: Small clay figurine from the fill of sacrificial Pit A5(or Pit 12) in Trench 33/160-200 cm (after MAKKAY, 1992: Pl. 28,1; P.144.175-177).

170 –

Fig. 107 - Endrõd, site 3/119. 1: Section C-D of Pit 13. 2: Section E-F of Oven O6 in Pit 13. 3: Sherd with textile impression from Pit 13 (after MAKKAY,2001c: fig. 8). 4: Sherd with textile impression from House 2 in Trench 29/0-30 cm.

– 171

Fig. 108 - Endrõd, site 3/119. 1: Pit 12 from the east, with the SE corner of Trench 32 in the front (P.135.140). 2: Pit 12 from the west (P.135.138). 3: Pit 12and Trench 29 (left) from the south (P.135.140). 4: Pit 12 from the SW with the SE corner of Trench 32 on the right (P.135.141). 5: Detail of Pit 12 from theSW (P.135.138). 6: Section of Pit 3 in Trench 31 from the east (not represented in fig. 73; P.135.199). 7: The southern wall of Trench 32 with the section ofPit 12 and debris-layer of House 2 from NNE (P.135.205). 8: The same as no. 7 from a shorter distance (P.135.204).

172 –

Fig. 109 - Endrõd, site 3/119. Pit 13 in Trenches 37-38. 1: Pit 13 in Trenches 37-38, the West wall (P.141.857). 2: Pit 13 in Trenches 37-38 from the NWwith the Árpádian Oven O6 in the background (P.141.859). 3: Pit 13 (back) and Pit 2 (front) with Oven O6 in Trenches 35, 37 and 38 (P.141.863). 4: Pit 13in Trenches 35 and 37 from the north (P.141.862). 5: The southern part of Trenches 35 and 37-38 from the NE with Pit 13 (right) and Pit 12 (left;P.141.860). 6: Trenches 37-38 from the NW with Pit 13 and Pit 2 (left; P.141.865).

– 173

drying or firing process. The repair was unsuccessfully attempted by applying a soft clay plaster in its innersurface. The crack might be one of the reasons why this piece was deposited in sacrificial Pit A4 (MAKKAY,

1992: 140 and 142, Pl. 172 and 25, 1). Amongst the many characteristics that point to the ritual function of thisfeature are 1) the presence of one complete vessel in a narrow pit, 2) one large, complete net-weight in the vesselcentre, 3) the unusual and rare repair of a coarse container, 4) the alternate yellow and black layers below thepitcher, and 5) also the fine, thin clay layer covering the lower part of the pitcher wall.

Fig. 110 - Endrõd, site 3/119. 1-2: Sacrificial Pit A8 in Trench 40 with the rounded bowl. 3: The deposit of sacrificial Pit A8 (P.146.599) with fence trenches of Árpádian Age. 4: The reconstructed large storage jar of the deposit.

174 –

The fill of Pit 12 can be briefly described as follows (the depths from the present surface vary according to theirposition in the different trenches; therefore also the profile can vary: see figs. 97, 1 and 2, and 102, 1, 3 and 4): 1)uppermost layer of the stratified house rubble at 30 and 50-60 cm; 2) layer below the light greyish house debriscontaining much ash and burnt wattle-and daub fragments, animal bones, net-weights and other artefacts, 3) third layer (below 90 cm in the pit centre) usually harder, of brownish or blackish colour, mixed with yellowish claylumps, containing less ash and finds, and 4) the lowermost thin fill of black or greyish black or brown colour, onthe virgin soil, poorly organic, with very few material culture remains and many charcoals, freshwater molluscsand fish scales. The deepest part of Pit 12 was found at the depth of some 180 cm, for instance in Trench 30.During the cleaning, a fragment of a human skull was found in Trench 29, in the southernmost part of Pit 12, at adepth of 90-120 cm. The excavation of Pit 12 was completed during the third 1988 season.

7.1.4. The 1988 season (Trenches 33-38)

The excavations were resumed in Trenches 33 and 34, which were opened in order to uncover thesouthernmost portion of Pit 12. The most important feature of this area was sacrificial Pit A5.

The western third of sacrificial Pit A5 was excavated into the fill of Pit 12 in Trench 33, and the largest, easternpart outside Pit 12 in the subsoil (figs. 103, 1-4, and 106, 1, 2 and 4). It contained a greyish-brownish fill thatcontrasted with the light greyish, ashy colour of Pit 12. Its eastern part outside Pit 12 did not yield any material. Pit12 contained very well preserved finds among which are the only complete clay figurine found during theexcavations (fig. 106, 3; MAKKAY, 1992: Pl. 281) and a small, complete face vessel (unpublished). Alternate darkand light layers were found in its lower part, while its upper fill was composed of a greyish-clayey deposit. Theunique Körös-Starèevo tiny cup with a pointed rim and a human face comes from 160-200 cm of depth. Onefragment of a large container, decorated with two plastic, schematic female figures also belongs to this assemblage(MAKKAY, 1992: Pl. 31, 2). The discovery of a complete human figurine, an entire face cup and a rare plasticrepresentation in the same context is unusual and, although they do not belong to sacrificial Pit A5, their depositionmight be related to it. All these specimens were found inside the refuse pit a few cm from the westernmost edge ofPit A5. Also the fragments of the above-mentioned large vessel (fig. 99, 2) were deposited in the deepest part of Pit12, at the western edge of sacrificial Pit A5 or in its proximity, together with many freshwater shells in a 50 cm wide strip. The fill above the large bowl fragments and the other finds was heavily burnt. A few large sherds of differentstorage jars were placed, like tiles, along the lowermost pit walls (see also Endrõd 3/39, Pit 1 in Trench IV above,and fig. 64, 3). A large (domestic?) cattle horn171, in the westernmost part of Pit A5, found very close to theabove-mentioned small clay figurine and face cup, indicates that this feature had most probably sacrificial character (fig. 106, 2, right; not represented in both profiles C-D and E-F because it was found between the two sections). Afine clay stamp-seal was found in the northeastern corner of Trench 32 at a depth of 60-80 cm (MAKKAY, 2001: fig.1, 3), while many freshwater shells were discovered in the easternmost part of the pit fill below 70 cm172.

Trench 35 was opened west of Trenches 31 and 34. After removing the uppermost arbitrary layers, thecleaning at a depth in 60 cm showed the outlines of large refuse Pit 13 of greyish colour in its central and southern part, west of Trench 35 (figs. 105, 108, 6 and 109, 1-6). A few traces of a more recent structure were noticed in the southernmost part of the same trench (later they were interpreted as the remains of the Árpádian Oven O6), whilecharacteristic potsherds of the Late Bronze Age Gáva Culture were found north of the central area of the trench.Bronze Age finds were also collected from the depth of 60-85 cm.

The excavation continued in Trench 35, in first the spits from 85 to 115 cm, then from 115 to 140 cm in thefill of Pit 13. It consisted of a loose ashy, greyish soil between 85 and 90 cm, brownish below 90 cm, withcompact yellow and black thin layers. These deeper parts yielded a small number of potsherds and animalbones. Trench 37 was opened to uncover the western part of Pit 13. Further work in the arbitrary layers, and the cleaning at a depth of 80 cm, revealed that the large refuse pit extended to the west. A spit between 80 and 100cm contained a great quantity of pottery. Groups of conjoining sherds of 3-5 vessels were found, upside-down,in three different points, with freshwater shells and fish scales below them as food refuses as if they had beenthrown into the pit after the eating of their content.

Trench 38 was opened at the depth of 100 cm, west of Trench 37 to excavate the western part of Pit 13. Thearbitrary layer 45-60 cm contained much fired clay from the area around House 2.

171. Unfortunately the piece cannot be identified amongst the seven cattle horns published by BÖKÖNYI (1992: 201 and 202 and fig. 1).172. They were stored in the archaeozoological collections of the AI and are at present missing.

– 175

The cleaning at a depth of 80 cm, in Trench 38, revealed that Pit 13 extended south and west of Trench 38and also Trench 39. This westernmost part could be excavated only in 1989. A great number of fired clay andwattle-and-daub fragments was noticed at the depth of 45-60 cm in the southern part of Trenches 37 and 38,and also in the southern half of Trench 35. They might have belonged to another feature (a third house?) southof the excavated area, although this lower-lying part of the site makes it improbable. Houses 3, 4 and 5belonged to the Late Avar and/or Early Árpádian periods.

A few small pieces of petrified wood were found at the depth of 80-110 cm. Similar finds come from theSzarvas 8/23 Körös features (unpublished). One small piece has an inlay of small, circular, mussel or shellpieces, most probably a fragment of a gaming board. The others are parts of unidentified objects (probably avessel with a characteristic Körös rim), flat rings and one penannular bracelet. The presence of toys (rattles,balls, models, etc.) is known since the Neolithic. The earliest gaming boards are known from Mesopotamiaand Egypt, dating to the 3rd millennium Cal BC (BIENKOWSKI and MILLARD, 2000: 297), although woodenspecimens have not survived. Boards with a variable number of squares are also known from the Near East.If my assumption about the Endrõd specimen is correct it can be considered the earliest so far known.

A group of four cattle metacarpal bones come from Pit 13 (80-110 cm) in Trench 38. Together with otherspecimens from site 119 they are bone spoon rough-outs that confirm J. NANDRIS’s (1972) suggestions about themanufacture of these tools (MAKKAY, 1990a: 27, 31, 32 and 35, fig. 5, 8-10).

The child Grave 10 was found at a depth of 120 cm in Pit 13, Trench 37. The skeleton was on its left side, NEoriented. Its body had been thrown to the surface of the pit. The heavily burnt upper arm and other bones of anadult (Grave 11) were found southeast of it. These two graves lay on the surface of the lowermost level of Pit 13,which consisted of a dark, hard fill with a small quantity of ash and a few sherds, to a depth of 200 cm.

To sum up, refuse Pit 13 was discovered in Trenches 35, 37, 38 (and 39 of the 1989 campaign). Itswesternmost part was excavated, while a small and shallow southern part remained intact. Close to itssouthwestern edge it contained Oven O7 (fig. 105). Large lumps of wattle-and-daub, fired to a glassy state, werefound north of the oven. Oven O6, attributed to the Late Avar period or to the Árpád Dynasty (VIII-XI centuriesAD), was found in its southeastern edge, in Trench 37 (fig. 105).

7.1.5. The 1989 season (Trenches 39-55)

The last campaign started with the excavation of the westernmost part of Pit 13 in Trench 39. The remains ofOven O7 were discovered at a depth of 45-80 cm in the southernmost part of Trench 39. It was built on the surfaceof the rubbish fill, at a depth of some 80 cm, with 15 cm high walls. Its smoothed clay floor, inclined towards the pitcentre, was covered with a thick, grey ash layer. The above-mentioned heavily fired wattle-and-daub fragmentswere found partly above the oven walls, partly to their north. According to their large dimensions, they did notbelong to the oven. They had been deposited into the pit as fragments of a house construction destroyed by fire.

The arbitrary layers of Trench 40, between 30-60 and 60-80/90 cm, yielded a few Körös fragments in a dry greyish or brownish deposit. The outline of a circular depression was recorded at a depth of 70 cm, down to110 cm. Conjoining sherds of a large container were found in sacrificial Pit A8 (fig. 110, 1-4) below a grey,clayey layer excavated into the sterile soil, associated with a complete, upside-down, four-footed,hemispherical bowl (fig. 110, 2). The bottom part of the same vessel, lay in the lowermost potsherds layer (fig.110, 1-4). Four layers of fragments of this vessel were placed into the pit, suggesting that it had beenintentionally broken during the ceremony. The lowest layer of sherds was found 10 cm above the pit bottom. Itcontained only a few animal bones, while a half roe deer antler was found towards the south. No potsherdswere noticed close to this feature. Some vessels were covered with a few cm thick layer of virgin yellow clay(not represented in the section of fig. 110, 2). The fill of the pit consisted of a brown, loose soil. Sacrificial PitA8 is different from the others, although its ritual cannot be reconstructed.

The arbitrary layers of Trenches 40 and 45 yielded the conjoining fragments of a squared clay box with abroken upper part and a curvilinear perimeter (fig. 91, 2) whose outer surfaces were crusted with red paint. Itshows close parallels with the unpublished fragments from Subotica-Szabadka, Ludas-Budzsák, attributed to the

176 –

Fig. 111 - Endrõd, site 3/119. 1-5: Oven O8 in Trench 42. 1: Section B-B. 2: The oven from the south with Pit 14 in the foreground. 3: Details of the upperopenings (P.146.660). 4: Drawing of the complete wide bowl found in the Oven. 5: Oven O8 in process of excavation.

– 177

Fig. 112 - Endrõd, site 3/119. 1-5: Plan and sections of O8 in Trench 42.

178 –

Copper Age Bodrogkeresztúr Culture in the museum catalogue173. Its function is unknown, although it is similarto the Macedonian Porodin Culture house-shaped clay boxes with a chimney-like upper opening174.

Trench 41 (and partly also Trench 42) yielded the debris of House 2, disturbed by loosening, and a fewcircular depressions, which were probably the postholes of another house (?).

Trench 42 showed the outline of Pit 14, after cleaning at a depth of 60 and 90 cm. Between 30 and 60 cm,there was an ash fill above a loose, brown soil rich in potsherds. A small, shallow pit with an oven at itsnorthern edge was discovered at some 90 cm of depth. The lowermost pit fill, between 90 and 120 cm,contained a hard dark soil very poor in finds. A thin, yellow clay layer, which might belong to Oven O8,covered the central part of the pit with a thin dark layer below it (figs. 111 and 112).

Refuse Pit 14 contained ashes from Oven O8. It was probably excavated to obtain clay for the constructionof the oven. It revealed a very complicated structure, which firstly did not look typically Körös. It wassignificantly different from all the other ovens of the site. Its southern mouth (fig. 111, 5)175 opened towardsthe uppermost ashy layer of Pit 14, from which the ash had most probably been removed. It consisted of adomed oven, constructed below the Körös surface, although the cavity might have an access from Pit 14. Themain cavity was excavated into a sterile soil while the upper one extended to a greyish buried soil. Its wallswere plastered while the lower parts, excavated inside the virgin soil, were unplastered. The red burnt plasterwas 2 cm thick. Before plastering, rough wooden slabs had been horizontally wedged into the soil from theopening in order to support the scooped, later plastered, dome. The wood imprints were visible in the dome.

The wooden pieces were placed radially towards the opening (fig. 112, 1). An oval cross-sectioned shaft,some 50 cm in diameter (a chimney), joined the oven’s arch in its western part (fig. 112, 5). The uppermost pointof this shaft was observed both in the buried soil and the Körös layer. The cultural attribution of this complex isundoubted because it opens from a Körös refuse pit and it yielded a Körös wide, footed bowl (figs. 111, 4 and112, 4). It was found on the floor of the eastern part of the feature, above a very thin ash layer. All the bowlfragments were collected although two were lost during its restoration. Its position shows that these structureswere also used for the preparation of liquids, as for instance soups and/or stews. The attribution of the oven to theKörös Culture is also supported by the absence of later finds from this area, and its construction technique, whichis different from that of all the other ovens of more recent ages. The position of the bowl suggests that the lifecame to a sudden and unexpected end on this part of the site because of a fire. The cultural attribution of Oven O8and Pit 14 can be connected with House 1 and three or four partly burnt skeletons close to the eastern wall ofHouse 1. House 1, Pit 14 and Oven O8 should belong to the last settlement phase.

The excavations were carried out in the northwestern part of the settlement, most of which did not yieldany trace of both large refuse pits and surface houses. A small Körös bipartite, refuse pit was found in Trench43, containing characteristic pottery among which is a potsherd with a white-on-red paint identical to otherspecimens from Pit 12, found at a depth of some 30 cm (MAKKAY, 1996: Pl. 9, 6). It cannot be excluded that itoriginally belonged to the assemblage of Pit 12.

Grave 13 was discovered in an irregular burial pit, in Trench 4, at a depth of some 60 cm (fig. 79, 1). Theskeleton lay on its right side, NE-SW oriented. The body was on the surface of a thin layer with typical Körösrefuses, very close to the present surface. It was covered with a thin layer of black, humic soil, which laterbecame very dry and hard. During its decomposition, the right side of the body sank 20 cm towards the centreof a shallow deposit. The soil loosening damaged its pelvis and feet. Red ochre was observed on the centralbody bones. No grave goods were found.

Sacrificial Pit A6 was found in the southern part of Trench 44, oriented towards NW-SE (fig. 113, 1 and 2). Its outline was first observed after the cleaning at a depth of 53 cm excavated from a greyish cultural layer. Thesides were almost vertical. Its uppermost fill consisted of a 30 cm yellow clay layer, below which was a 35-37cm thick brownish-blackish level with alternate yellow and dark layers below it (fig. 113, 3). It contained onlya few small Körös sherds and animal bones.

173. Ludas-Budzsák material stored in the Szabadka-Subotica Museum. Kind information of the late Szekeres László.174. See MAKKAY and STARNINI (forthcoming 3). A very similar, fragmented squared clay vessel with two rows of circular impressions on its walls wasfound at Slatina (Sofia) in House 4, where it was deposited as a foundation offering (NIKOLOV and SIRAKOVA, 2002: 172 and fig. 3, 8). Also this vessel had a red-crusted paint on its outer surface. 175. According to the field notes of August 4th, 1989: 15, during the final cleaning and after completing the excavation of this feature, it was suggested thatthe opening of the oven was in the northern side. Nevertheless this impression cannot be put forward because the presence of much ash in Pit 14 supports the opposite view.

– 179

Fig. 113 - Endrõd, site 3/119. 1-3: Sacrificial pit A6 in Trench 44. 1-2: Photographs from the northwest (P.146.612-146.613). 3: Section E-E on thesouthern wall of Trench 44.

180 –

Fig. 114 - Endrõd, site 3/119. 1: Plan of Pit 16 in Trench 45 (D.26.492). 2: Section G-G1 of Pit 16 in Trench 45.

– 181

Fig. 115 - Endrõd, site 3/119. 1: Plan of Pit 19 and section J-J1 of sacrificial Pit A7 in Trench 52. 2: The Northern wall of Trench 33 from the southwest withPit 12 in the foreground (P.142.794). 3: Pit 18 in Trench 55, with the Árpádian House H4 on the right (P.146.626).

182 –

Fig. 116 - Endrõd, site 3/119. 1: Section I-I1 of sacrificial Pit A7 in Trench 52 (D.26.694). See also fig. 115, 1. 2: Sacrificial Pit A7 from the west. 3: Grave14 of the Late Bronze Age in Trench 52 (P.146.622). 4: Grave 14 (D.26.477). 5: Sherds of the Middle Copper Age Bodrogkeresztúr Culture from the site:stray finds. 5: Stray find. 6: Trench 55/30-60 cm. 7: Trench 33/30-60 cm. 8: Trench 11/30-50 cm. 9: Trenches 20-24.

– 183

Pit 16, in Trenches 45 and 50, contained Late Bronze Age finds, among which are three stamp-seals two ofwhich are complete and one fragmentary. Their surface is decorated with irregular impressions. Pit 1, in thenortheastern corner of Trench 44 yielded characteristic Körös pottery and a clay stamp-seal.

Sacrificial Pit A7 was excavated in Trench 52. Its eastern part extended into the narrow profile baulkbetween Trenches 52 and 19 excavated in 1986 (fig. 115, 1 and 116, 1 and 2). It did not yield any finds,although it undoubtedly belongs to the Körös period. It might be earlier than Pit 9 and its eastern part wasprobably truncated by the excavation of this latter structure.

Grave 15 was found in the northernmost part of Trench 54. It contained the skeleton of a small infant at thebottom of the black deposit. It was W-E oriented, on its right side at the depth of 45-50 cm. It can be probably

Fig. 117 - Endrõd, site 3/119. 1: Section of Pit 18 in Trench 55 (D.26.500). 2: Fragment of a clay figurine from Pit 1 in Trench 55/30-60 cm (P.159.690). 3:Fragment of a smaller clay figurine of a similar type from Trench 55/West, 30-60 cm (P.159.688). 4: Clay relief fragment from the outer wall of a large jarrepresenting a tortoise, belonging to the ALP assemblage from Szarvas 8/75, object 10 excavated in 1989 (P.159.688) (the courtesy of I. Juhász).

184 –

attributed to the Neolithic because it was covered by an undisturbed, very hard black layer, although MAKKAY

(1992: 134) previously attributed it to the X-XI centuries AD.Trench 55 was opened west of Pit 12. It led to the discovery of the Árpádian House H4 and Pit 18 (fig. 117, 1), a

small Körös refuse pit with characteristic pottery, associated with fragments of an unusual clay figurine (fig. 117, 2and 3). Fragments of similar statuettes were found also in the baulk between Trenches 44 and 51. The flat shapes,the finely tempered clay body and the light brown colour differ from the general typology of the Körös figurines.

7.2. SUMMARY OF THE ENDRÕD 3/119 EXCAVATIONS

Given that the site is 70-75 m long in NE-SW direction, and 40-50 m wide in NW-SE, the 2500-3000 sq mexcavation led to its complete recovery. The distribution map of the most important Neolithic features shows thatthe rich, large refuse pits was distributed in the southern part of the low, oval, NE-SW elevation. Regarding the twoKörös buildings, House 1 was close to its northeastern end, along the ridge of the low mound, while House 2 wasmore close to its southern slope around the mid-line. Only smaller features were found to their north, while the onlyKörös structures of the central area consisted of sherd scatters, small pits and other finds. Given that the highestpoint is in the centre of the mound, it is likely that it served as a communal ground for the social life of thesettlement, which might have consisted of two houses. The area available for house building was of this dimensionalso during the late Avar period (800-900 AD) and the Árpád Dynasty (X and XI centuries AD). During theseperiods not more than three buildings (Houses 3, 4 and 5) may have stood in the same elevation, and a smallcemetery dated to 950-1000 AD. The very small population size and the short occupation are also indicated by thelimited number of Neolithic burials, which yielded not more than ten inhumations, mainly children.

7.2.1. The houses

Detailed information on the Körös Culture houses were no longer available due to the damage caused by tillage a few years before our excavations. Nevertheless two oblong houses, 10-12 m long and 4-6 m wide, N-S oriented,were recorded. They did not contain any trace of ovens or fireplaces. They both had been constructed above a refuse pit. House 1 above Pit 5, and House 2 above most of Pit 12 (fig. 99, 1). House 2 and Pit 12 yielded severalconjoinable sherds (MAKKAY, 1992: 149). While House 1 did not yield any posthole, several were recorded fromthe wider area of House 2, some of which inside the habitation structure, others outside. These postholes did notshow any definite outline; furthermore a few of them were proven not to be postholes. No plastered and/or burnedfloors were recovered. The floors were stamped or simply tramped and defined only on the basis of the findsdistribution. House 2 yielded a very rich assemblage. Fragments of at least thirteen vessels were scattered on thefloor and amongst its ruins (figs. 92, 4 and 5; 94, 2, 3, 5 and 6 and 95, 4) as well as net-weights grouped in severalclusters (figs. 94, 7 and 8) (MAKKAY, 1992: Pl. 1 and 2; 17, 1 and 22, 3 and 4; see also the net-weights in Pl. 41, 4).

The large vessel close to another in the northeastern posthole of House 2 is supposed to have a ritualsignificance (figs. 87, 90, 1-4, 91, 1 and 99 in the northeastern corner of Trench 26). J. BANNER (1935: 105, 115, Pl.XIV: 7, XV: 6 and 7 and XVI: 1 and 2; 1942: 17 and Pls. VII, 2, IX, 7 and X, 7) noticed that single, large vesselswere standing intact at the Körös settlement of Kotacpart-Vata tanya, near Hódmezõvásárhely. A similarobservation can be made for the large ALP face-decorated vessels (KALICZ and MAKKAY, 1972: 15)176. We cannotexclude the ritual function of the Endrõd 3/119 object amongst the so-called ‘posthole-sacrifices’ (MAKKAY, 1988: 3-21). Nevertheless it is possible that large vessel fragments were placed inside the postholes in order to fix thepost itself (see the large bowl fragments of fig. 99, 2). Fragments of large vessels were occasionally employed toline the lowermost, inner walls of refuse pits (see Endrõd 3/39 pit in Trench IV: fig. 64, 3).

Ovens and fireplaces were built in the open spaces between the houses. Three were connected with refuse pits(Pit 10+O4, Pit 11+O5, and Pit 14+O8), while others were placed in their fill (Pit 9+O2, Pit 13+O7, and perhapsalso Pit 4 and the oven of fireplace F1; figs. 85; 86, 4 and 5; 87, 96, 1-3; 105; 111; 112 and 87 respectively). It isworth mentioning again that Oven O8 has no parallels with any other Early Neolithic structure (figs. 111 and 112),although it undoubtedly belongs to the Körös Culture, due to the recovery of a complete pedestalled bowl inside it.

A very large number of features can be interpreted as sacrificial pits or places. They occur in a variety offorms among which is the sacrificial posthole in Trench 25 (figs. 91 and 92). The simplest is sacrificial Pit 8,which contained a large vessel in a circular, shallow pit, some 80 cm in diameter, excavated into the sterile soil

176. The most recent example of this sacrifice was discovered at the Bükk Culture site of Garadna, near Miskolc, in NE Hungary, where a 81 cm high storage jar with a face representation was recovered. See the daily Magyar Nemzet, 22.05.2003: 15.

– 185

(fig. 110). It was found together with a four-legged, upside-down bowl and a few animal bones. Sacrificial Pit 1,in the central deepest part of Pit 5, differs from the other six (fig. 77). It is a circular, deep, narrow pit filled with5-6 layers of sacrificial deposit, with numerous freshwater molluscs, covered by a thin layer of yellow clay. Anupside-down ceramic lamp with a broken cup was recovered at its top in a mass of fish bones and burnt remains.The deposition of upside-down small vessels and bones was undoubtedly part of the ceremonies, as shown alsoby the footed bowl in sacrificial Pit A8. The lamp ceremonial character is reinforced by the deposition of abroken (?) ceramic lamp or altar in the sacrificial pit of Szarvas 8/23 on the tip of a red deer antler, together with asmall conical cup on the other tip (fig. 19). The Szarvas ritual ceremony consisted also in the deposition ofchipped artefacts. It is important to point out the presence of fragmented lamps in both cases.

Sacrificial Pit A1 is rather similar to that excavated at Endrõd 3/39, in Trench XX, below a Körös houserubble and construction debris (figs. 60 and 71) (MAKKAY, 1983: 157-160; 1986: 170, fig. 1). The difference isthat while one single rite was observed at Endrõd 39, a multiple ritual is documented from the site under study.Another difference is that the Endrõd 39 rite was bloodless, while in our case the sacrifice of a dog wasaccompanied by the deposition of freshwater shells. It is the repetitive sacrifice that points to thenon-constructional character of this offering, which might pre-date the building of House 1. It belongs to anotherritual unrelated to the construction of House 1.

The other sacrificial features (sacrificial Pit 2-Pit 7) are similar, even though important differences can benoticed (figs. 75, 1; 77; 80-82; 90; 91; 100; 103; 113 and 116). These structures (MAKKAY, 1989a; CHAPMAN,

2000; 2000a), which might be better called ‘ritual shaft’, have never been described so far from anyKörös-Starèevo site, although a few were probably found by J. Banner at Kotacpart-Vata tanya nearHódmezõvásárhely. It cannot be excluded that feature E4 was a narrow shaft. Pit 5 was probably a sacrificialshaft with diameters of 2 and 1.4 m, 3 m deep. According to BANNER (1935: 104-105) “at a depth of 1 metre thispit broadened to 2.4 metres at which breadth it was 2.5 metres deep. Then it ended in a hardly 0.5 metre broadbut 2.8. metres long ditch at a depth of 3.6. metres”177.

Some sacrificial shafts contained only a few potsherds in a primary position, unrelated to any ritual function,as it is the case for sacrificial Pit A2.

One of the characteristics of these pits is that they narrow abruptly around half depth and their deepestpoint is only a few cm wide. A sequence of alternate dark, organic and virgin clay deposits characterise theirlowermost filling. These latter are usually yellow and deepen inwards from the sides (figs. 82; 100 and 113).The curved profile of the yellow layer is shown in fig. 113, 2.

A few colleagues who were excavating Linear Pottery houses and features suggested that the alternate blackand yellow fill was natural, caused by the erosion. This hypothesis is unfounded because it does not provide anyinterpretation of the function of these features and is contradicted by the top fill of sacrificial Pit A6 (fig. 113),which is of almost pure yellow clay. This material was not available from the surface of the buried Neolithic soilclose to the shaft, and consequently it was brought there artificially for instance during the building of a house.

These shafts may be subdivided into two groups according to their content. Some contain artefacts, amongwhich are sacrificial remains. This is the case for sacrificial Pit A4, which yielded a complete, large vessel with anet-weight into it (figs. 99, 1 and 101) and sacrificial Pit A3, with part of the skull and other sheep bones (figs. 99, 1 and 100). The others were empty or yielded only very few potsherds and animal bones. As mentioned above, itwas not possible to understand if the small clay figurine (the only complete specimen from the site) and the rare,relief decorated fragment (probably representing dancing women in a Balkan round dance?), as well as a smallcup with a human face from Pit 12178, were originally in sacrificial Pit A5 (figs. 103 and 106, 1-4).

The sacrificial shafts are oriented in a NNW-SSE and SW-NE direction. One of their edges is alwaysnarrower than the other, although the narrow end may point to both directions. They were often excavated intorefuse pits or in their close proximity (Pit 5 and sacrificial Pit A1, Pit 4 and sacrificial Pit A2, Pit 12 + sacrificialPit A3 and A5, Pit 13 + sacrificial Pit A4, Pit 9 + sacrificial Pit A7), although in some cases the refuse pits are notassociated with sacrificial pits (Pits 10, 11 and 14). Nevertheless the sacrificial shafts, which are partly or totallylocated inside refuse Pits (A2 and A5) are independent from them and were excavated secondarily followingtheir partial or complete filling. The recovery of these features significantly contributed to the understanding ofthe Körös Culture rituals, although it is impossible to explain why these structures have never been recordedfrom other Körös sites of the region and that they are known predominantly from the Central European Linear

177. Opposite to the Endrõd shafts this feature was very long, and some Copper Age pottery is mentioned from this site. 178. MAKKAY (1992: 124) erroneously mentioned them from Pit 10.

186 –

Pottery Culture, sometimes called tanning pits (GRONENBORN, 1989; MAKKAY, 1989a: 243-248). Most of thefinds come from ten large and a few small refuse pits (Pit 4, 5, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14 17, 18 and 20: fig. 73). Their sizeis not necessarily related with the abundance of their contents. For instance, the assemblage of Pit 4 is richer thanthat of Pit 14. Their upper fill is often composed of ashy layers of a grey, loose deposit, while the lower isbrownish and loose. It becomes thicker and darker towards the bottom, where the number of sherds decreases.

Smaller or larger burnt patches are common to the sequence of the refuse pits. In a few cases, they might have been fireplaces (as for instance fireplace F1 in Pit 4: figs. 74 and 80). Most of them originated from cinders,which kept burning after being dumped into the pit. Layers of fish scales were also observed, especially in Pits 12 and 13, sometimes associated with vessels179.

Almost intact vessels were often found inside these pits. In several cases, the asymmetric wear visible onone of their surfaces indicates that, although they had been thrown inside the refuse pit, they remained exposed for a considerable period (see, for instance, the vessels found in a group in the spit 80-100 cm in Pit 12:MAKKAY and STARNINI, forthcoming 2).

Pit 12 was extraordinary both for its richness in ceramic finds and dimensions. Other settlements in theEndrõd-Szarvas region (especially Szarvas 8/23 and Endrõd 3/39) yielded 220 and even 300 cm deep refusepits, although their average depth was some 2 m. At this site, only Pit 13 was deeper than 200 cm (fig. 105, 2)down to the water table.

The ALP and Körös Culture features systematically show some differences. The upper fill of the Körösrefuse pits is usually loose and ashy with a high organic content, which contrasts with the majority of the ALPrefuse pits and pit dwellings. The ALP pits usually yield the same quantity of pottery (as for instance Szarvas8/102 and Gyoma 4/107), although both their upper and the lower fill is hard, almost tar like. This would implythat the climate was drier during the ALP period, which is also supported by the fact that some ALP sites arelocated in lower-lying areas. The Körös-Starèevo sites of the Körös Rivers are never located below 83 m,whereas isolated ALP settlements are often found in lower areas (MAKKAY, 1982a: 160 and 161).

20 kg of soil samples were collected during the 1987-1988 seasons for water sieving. The samples have notbeen so far studied and only a preliminary unpublished report was written by J. Chapman.

7.2.2. Relative chronology of the features

The two houses and refuse pits represent more than one period of occupation. If we suggest that only one of thehouses stood at any given time, housing one family, the question is which of the two buildings was the earliest. It isalso likely that some of the refuse pits were originally opened to extract clay for the construction of the houses180.Both Pits 5 and 12 might have been quarries for Houses 1 and 2 respectively181 that partially or totally cover thesepits, which might help define their relative chronology. The remaining refuse pits might have been utilised for houseconstruction and renovation and other activities (building ovens, fireplaces and re-plastering houses182). Neverthelessit is impossible to understand which of the small refuse pits played this role. The largest pits, which yielded the richestassemblages, are located in the southern part of the settlement, which was possibly the area in front of the southernentrances of the houses and as such may have been one of the important areas for daily activities.

Regarding the relative chronology of some of the pits and houses, the following data are worth considering.Some yielded complete vessels reconstructed from sherds from different depths of the same pit. It is well knownthat vessel fragments thrown into a refuse pit may end up at considerable distances and depths. They may even mixwith the lower pit layers during their filling (as for instance moved by animal burrows183, stamped into deeper partsby cattle roaming freely on the site, activity of dogs, etc.). Furthermore one should assume such movements whenthe pit is still open and ‘alive’ and its organic content has not completely decomposed. This period should not belonger than 20-25 years or a generation. The restored vessels and even more the fragments from at least four pitswere in varying vertical positions. Fragments from the same vessel were often found 1 m above each other or even

179. Cfr. the lower quern from this site, which was perhaps used for cleaning fishes, scraping their scales (STARNINI and SZAKMÁNY, 1998: 290 and fig. 15). According to these authors a post-depositional cause cannot be excluded. 180. My 1960 research in a small gypsy settlement of 65 people at Nagykõrös (17 males, 19 females and 29 children living in 13 houses) showed that the materialfor building their houses were obtained from pits lying close to the house. The clay pits later were used for any kind of litter and rubbish (MAKKAY, 1999b). 181. An opposed view was expressed by MAKKAY (1992: 125).182. The inhabitants of the Nagykõrös gypsy settlement plaster their wattle-and-daub houses twice a year at worn places. For more details see MAKKAY (1999).183. For the role of the rodents see the recent excavations of L. Domboróczki at Tiszaszõlõs-Domaháza, a small site north of the Körös Culture distribution line.The excavator believes that he found a Körös Culture rubbish pit (outside its distribution territory) with associated ALP pottery from the lower part of the pit(beneath typical Körös pottery) (DOMBORÓCZKI, 2003: 30, note 97) “It is interesting that ALP forms and motifs can be found towards the top of the pit”. Formy comments see MAKKAY (2004a: 38-39). L. DOMBORÓCZKY (2004: 304) wrote that these ALP potsherds penetrated into the lower pit layers due toburrowing activity of rodents and also deep ploughing: “az AVK kori járószintbõl beszántott, illetve rágcsálók által beszállított szórványok”.

– 187

greater depths (MAKKAY, 1992: Pl. 12: 3: 120 cm and Pl. 13: 140 cm). If the Körös occupation was continuous,assuming that each pit was used at a time and functioned for 20 years, the settlement lasted maximum 200 years.

Another data source consists in the restored vessels and other fragments brought to light from twodifferent features. A tabulation shows a high number of associations between House 2 and Pit 12 (10 vesselsand a further fragment whose shape could not be completed, 11 altogether: MAKKAY, 1992: 149). Fragmentsof 2 open bowls from House 2 and Pit 12 show impressed linear decorations on their outer, and in one case,inner surface184. There were other very characteristic fragments of two globular vessels, decorated with astroke-burnished pattern, whose conjoining parts were brought to light from Pit 12 and Pit 13 (MAKKAY,1992, Pl. 34: 1 and 2). In a few cases, this might have occurred accidentally, or because of a more recentdisturbance. An example is that of the above-mentioned large, coarse bowl (fig. 99, 2, and MAKKAY, 1992:127 and Pl. 36, 1), whose fragments were found against the wall in the deepest part of Pit 12, while other pieces were placed in the posthole, which probably belonged to House 2.

House 2 overlapped Pit 12, and during its later phase also Pit 13. The fragments of a small vessel were foundwithin the rubble of House 2 and Pit 10 (MAKKAY, 1992: Pl. 26, 17). This suggests that Pit 10 was (partly)contemporaneous with House 2 and Pit 12. At the same time House 2 covered most of Pit 12 in Trenches 27-30,and probably also in southernmore trenches (fig. 99). This indicates that more pits were simultaneously in use,while only House 2 stood, and House 1 was built after the abandonment of the other. The chronological sequence

of the settlement features might be the following: 1. Pit 12 was the earliest of five features (House 2, Pits 12 and 13, sacrificial Pit A5 and posthole or Pit 2 in

Trench 34: fig. 99, Trench 34). It was opened before the construction of House 2 and its clay might have beenutilised as house building material. At the time of its construction, however, Pit 12 was not completely filled.For this reason parts of the large bowl placed into the posthole in Trench 34, probably belonging to House 2,refit with the fragments from Pit 12 or sacrificial Pit A5 (fig. 99, 2).

2. The posthole in Trench 34 was excavated during, or slightly before, the building of House 2, and shortly afterthe opening of (the northern part of) Pit 12. Fragments of a large bowl were probably used for packing the lowerpart of the posthole to hold the base of a post. Conjoining sherds of the same bowl were found in deepest part ofPit 12, whose lowermost filling is therefore contemporaneous with the posthole. An alternative hypothesis isthat these sherds fell into the pit during a ceremony performed near the wall of sacrificial Pit A5. However, inmy opinion, these fragments do not belong to the assemblage intentionally deposited into sacrificial Pit A5, butthey were set against the deepest wall of Pit 12 (similarly to the large sherds found at Endrõd 3/39 [fig. 64, 3]against the wall of the lowest part of Pit 1 in Trench IV, which was a small, internal shaft).

3. During the life of House 2, the parts of Pit 12 not covered by the building, gradually filled above the levelcontaining the large bowl potsherds. Since this regards most of the pit deposit185, one may assume that itsmain content was composed of construction debris, because only the south pit portion, outside the house,remained empty during the use of the house. However, the northern half of Pit 12 was beneath House 2:therefore its artefacts must be older than those from House 2. Some sherds of the large bowl were found in theposthole in Trench 34, beyond the hypothetical outline of the house. The logic of this deposition process issupported by the reconstructed vessels whose sherds were found amongst the house rubble, while otherconjoining fragments come from Pit 12 below, sometimes from considerable depths186. This suggests that Pit 12-House 2 complex was partly contemporaneous, and predated Pit 13. The objects from Pit 12 are more orless contemporaneous with the occupation of the house, with the proviso that some may have been depositedbefore the construction of the habitation structure.

4. The reason why I suppose that the whole complex is older than Pit 13 is that two large refuse pits could notcoexist in close vicinity in a small site like Endrõd 3/119, especially if they occupied a large part of the wholesettled area. It can be assumed that Pit 13 served as a refuse pit for House 2 when clay Pit 12 was completelyfilled and its clay was used for the renovation of parts of House 2 and other works.

5. Therefore Pit 13 is more recent than the above-mentioned structures. This feature was not necessarily openedduring the lifetime of House 2 (MAKKAY, 1992, 149). Nevertheless the close relationships between Pit 12 and

184. MAKKAY (2000: nos. 22 = MAKKAY, 1992: Pl. 35) and 23, Pls. 2, 5 and 9, and also 24, not illustrated in the 2000 article.185. The field note dated to August 19th, 1987: 40 mentions that “débris of house 2 covered Pit 12 till the middle of trench 32”, i.e. most of it (fig. 99, 1). This extension, however, only shows the outlines of the house debris after its final destruction, covering an area larger than the original one. A minor diffusion of house debris might also have been caused by the soil loosening as it was the case for square 33/1988. 186. For the list see MAKKAY (1992, 159: Pit 12 and House 2). 11 cases were recorded where parts of the same reconstructed vessels were recovered fromdifferent features. Nine of these are from Pit 12 and House 2. Two fragments were found in the deepest part of Pit 12 and in Trench 30 between 100 and 160cm (MAKKAY, 1992: Pl. 36, 1), other pieces come from pit layers between 60 and 90 cm. See also MAKKAY (2000: fragments 22-24).

188 –

13 are indicated by fragments of the same vessel in both features (MAKKAY, 1992: 146 and 149, Pl. 34, 1;2000: Taf. 4, 45). They are part of a globular pot with a low rim, decorated with stroke burnished or finelyincised lines. The two fragments were yielded by two different features and depths (60-90 and 100-160 cm).

6. As mentioned above, House 2 and the fill of Pit 5, below House 1, might have been partly contemporaneous asshown by the presence of two ‘metallic ware’ vessels from these structures (fig. 96, 4; MAKKAY, 1990: Pl. 1,1-3; 1992: Pl. 1, 1-3. If this observation is correct the earliest part of the fill of Pit 12 is the oldest of the site.

7. The fragments of only one small vessel were found in House 2 and Pit 10 (MAKKAY, 1992: 149, Pl. 26, 17).This suggests that Pit 10, close to the entrance of House 1, is (partly) contemporaneous with House 2. Pit 11and Pit 14, with their Ovens O5 and O8, belong to House 1 and House 2, although their relationships will bebetter understood only after the detailed study of the pottery assemblages. It seems that each house had itsown subterranean oven. The refuse Pit 11 cut the eastern part of Pit 12 (fig. 93, 1).

8. It is important to point out that the other features discovered in the eastern part of the settlement (House 1 andPits 4, 5, 9 and 10) do not show any relationships, as, for instance, conjoining potsherds or other artefacts.

A preliminary conclusion, based on the stratigraphic evidence and partly the pottery typology, wouldsuggest that the life of this small settlement is to be subdivided into two main periods. House 2 and the two orthree pits associated with it (Pits 12, 13 and perhaps Pit 10) can be attributed to the earlier phase to whichbelong also three fragments of the same vessel with a fine, white paint on a burnished brownish slip. In myopinion this type of painted ware belongs to the early, white-painted Körös-Starèevo Culture period (seeabove, and also MAKKAY, 1990: 113-122). The common monochrome ware of this phase (including the redmonochrome sherds187) and its few fragments with white-on-red/brown paint resembles the Early Neolithicdark burnished wares of northwestern Turkey with its red monochrome pottery from Hoca Çesme 4 andwhite-on-red painted pottery from Aþaði Pinar 6 (ÖZDOÐAN, 2003: 348 and fig. 2c), while the vessel shapesare slightly different. I suggest that the ‘monochrome ware’, especially its red variant, corresponds to the dark(red and brown) burnished wares of NW Turkey188.

The only problem of this chronology is that both House 2 and Pit 12 (and also Pit 5) yielded a number offorms of so-called ‘metallic ware’ and other, similar sherds, which usually are not considered to becharacteristic of the early pottery manufacture (the ‘metallic’ shapes and their characteristic shiny finishusually are not considered to represent early pottery manufacture that looked like metal vessels, because theyare far older than the beginning of the production of metal vessels). Vessel types (mostly carinated bowls)characteristic of the late Körös-Starèevo Culture, known as Protovinèa phase (figs. 132, 1-10 and 135),sometimes occur also in earlier or Classic Körös-Starèevo assemblages. Among the restored vessels, only twoare from this site (fig. 95, 4; MAKKAY, 1992: Pl. 1, 1 and 5).

Thus this small settlement began during the early, white-painted phase and, after a continuous developmentits existence ceased shortly before the latest Protovinèa phase189. Life continued at the neighbouring settlementsEndrõd 3/39 (pit in Trench XVIII) and especially Endrõd 3/6 with its several late Körös-Protovinèa assemblagesand also Protovinèa-Szatmár sub-periods until the end of the Körös times.

This picture is partly contradicted by the occurrence of a typical ALP sherd in the undisturbed fill of thesouthern part of Trench 18 (MAKKAY, 1987: fig. 4, 4; see also the list of ALP sherds below, and figs. 141 and142). This assemblage, which contains a few other artefacts, among which is a small fragmentary steatopygous figurine (MAKKAY, 1992: Pl. 28, 6 and 29, 9), might represent a short, late Körös occupation that followed themain settlement period. Otherwise the above-mentioned sherd can be attributed to a moment immediatelypreceding the Protovinèa phase.

Alternate dark (organic sacrificial deposit) and yellow clay layers in the sacrificial pits have beeninterpreted as indicators of periodical sacrifices (SOUDSKY, 1961). Thus, the sequence of sacrificial shafts,assuming that they followed each other without long interruptions and that their layers indicate seasons oryears, would represent the site’s life span. Such an analysis so far has not been carried out, although the

187. According to a statistic made on the red monochrome (red-slipped) sherds, their number is surprisingly low (286 pieces), well below 1% of the totalpercentage: 7 are from Szarvas 8/56 (an extremely high percentage compared to the other sites), 27 from Szarvas 8/8, 36 from Endrõd 3/39, 63 from Endrõd3/119 and 153 from Szarvas 8/23, especially Pit 1 in Trenches I-II/1974.188. For my critics of the monochrome theory, see the chapter on Szarvas, 8/23, and also the general conclusions.189. According to the recent analysis of the Körös-Starèevo Culture Spondylus finds (DIMITRIJEVIÆ and TRIPKOVIÆ, 2002: 55), the chronology of abracelet fragment from Endrõd 119 (MAKKAY, 1990a: fig. 4, 3) is difficult to define since Pit 12 contained material from different Körös periods, among which are early phase white painted potsherds, and also typical Protovinèa forms. The assemblage from Pit 12 is to be considered the earliest of the sitewithout any single Protovinèa type.

– 189

sequence of alternate layers would suggest a period not exceeding four generations and the 10 burials an evenshorter occupation (Graves 1-4, 9-11, 13 and 15 and B). Only four were adult graves or isolated bones.

The available data show the absence of any Körös graveyard. The deceased were buried in refuse pitsinside the settlement or close to it. The Körös burials brought to light (Endrõd 3/39 did not yielded any singlegrave) probably represent the real population size.

To conclude, the number of graves is realistic. It excludes an occupation of several centuries or the repeatedoccupation of a settlement with only two houses, eight sacrificial pits, two underground ovens and ten majorrefuse pits. The continuity between the two houses cannot be demonstrated. Even though we suppose that theyare not contemporaneous and followed each other diachronically (continuously or separated by a time interval),the site occupation cannot have been longer than twice two generations that is twice some fifty years. It would behypothetical to suggest that it was abandoned after the first period (House 2) and the same, or another (?) group of people resettled it after a certain interval to build House 1. The material culture assemblages from the settlementand Houses 1 and 2 would exclude any gap in the site life. Their location does not show any stratigraphicrelationship because House 1 lies east, and House 2 west of the site centre.

It seems reasonable to suggest that House 2 and the pits associated with it belong to the earliest settlementperiod, House 1 and its related group of features to the later one. A small spot in Trench 18 indicates a laterProtovinèa period. It is possible that the detailed analysis of the finds will slightly modify this chronology.

The number of dwellings, refuse pits and other structures (fireplaces, ovens and sacrificial pits), indicatethat the site was settled for a short period, as does the low number of burials. This contradicts the chronological sequence of the material culture assemblages, which spans from the Early Körös, throughout the Classic orMiddle phase, to the appearance of Protovinèa elements, although these latter are poorly represented. Thesedata do not support the available radiocarbon chronology, according to which the Körös Culture lasted some800 years (WHITTLE et al., 2002).

As I have already pointed out, this would imply that one pig was butchered every 15, 25 or 40 years. An almostfully excavated site, whose faunal assemblage is the largest sample ever collected and published from a Körös, oreven from a SE European Early Neolithic settlement, represents the nutritional needs of two nuclear families for13.7 years. This fact causes an irresolvable conflict with a supposed 500-year occupation of the site (BÖKÖNYI,1992a). In my opinion the solution is, apart from what is suggested by the radiocarbon dates, to shorten the assumed life span of the culture to maximum some 3-4 centuries. The surprising homogeneity of the material cultureremains, both in a territorial and a chronological sense of the culture would suggest a similar conclusion.

Short resettlement in theProtovinèa period

Sporadic presence of Early ALP (Szatmár) incised ware during or before the Protovinèa period,without settlement features and Protovinèa types: Trench 18

Classic Körös

Burning of House 1, Graves 1-4 near House 1, and the last use of O8 near Pit 14

House 1 above Pit 5, later deposits of Pit 13, Pit 11 with oven O5

Pit below House 1 and contemporaneous surface features (still unidentified)

End of Pit 12 and the first phase of Pit 13

Early Körös (white painted)House 2 above Pit 12, contemporaneous deposits of Pit 12, Pit 10, sacrificial Pit A5 (Pit 14+O8?)

The oldest part of Pit 12, shortly before the building of House 2

Table 13 - Internal chronology of Endrõd 3/119.

190 –

8. ENDRÕD, SITE 3/45 (figs. 119-122)

A short trial excavation was carried out at this multi-period site (fig. 1, 18) by P. Árkus between August 25th

and September 2nd, 1975 (MAKKAY in MRT8, 1989: 148). Its scope was to discover Körös Culture features anddefine their stratigraphic relationships with the ALP settlement remains. Unfortunately, the excavation did notlocate either Körös refuse pits or habitation layers. Six trenches were opened covering an area of 128 sq m. Fivesmall refuse pits were discovered belonging to the Sarmatian and Árpádian periods, with Körös pottery in asecondary position. The shallow Pit 3 could be attributed to the ALP Culture. It yielded red slipped fragments ofa Körös bowl in a secondary position. Pit 2 contained undisturbed Körös finds, among which are potsherds and abroken bone spoon (MAKKAY, 1990a: Abb. 3, 5). The material is represented by Classic Körös vessels withcharacteristic barbotine, pinching, plastic and incised decorations (figs. 119; 120, 6; 121, 1-3 and 8-12 and 122).Among the other finds there is a fragmented Szarvas type net-weight (fig. 121, 5 and 6), numerous pieces of three and four-legged altars (fig. 120, 11-14), fragments of bulls and probably a red deer figurines (fig. 120, 2-4). Twospecimens belong to human statuettes (fig. 120, 1 and 5), while a few fragments of large containers show bothhuman and animal plastic representations (fig. 120, 6-9). Fragments of a bone ring and a small clay ball (fig. 120,10) were also found. Protovinèa shapes are not present, although this might be due to the small amount of finds.

9. ENDRÕD, SITE 3/158 (figs. 123 and 124)

The site lies at a short distance from Endrõd 3/6 (fig. 1, 4). Here the remains of a refuse pit with a typical,Körös Culture, greyish loose fill were found during our intensive survey, during which we collectedcharacteristic potsherds of both the Körös and ALP Cultures. During the excavations at the neighbouring sitesEndrõd 3/6 and 3/119, a rescue operation brought to light the remains of a feature, which had been mostlydestroyed by a canal. The Körös refuse pit had been cut by an early ALP pit (fig. 123, 1 and 2). Its characteristicdark fill contained Szatmár incised potsherds (fig. 141, 17 and 18) associated with a channelled sherd and otherProtovinèa specimens (fig. 124, 2-4). A few bones of a crouched ALP grave, destroyed by the canal, were alsoexcavated. Its grave goods consisted of a necklace of limestone and Spondylus beads around its neck (figs. 123,2-4 and 124, 1; MAKKAY, 1992b: 320 and Pl. 15, 3).

Fig. 118 - Szarvas, site 8/56. Reconstructed, fine ware necked jar from Trench 1/1981 (drawings by E. Starnini).

– 191

Fig. 119 - Endrõd, site 3/45. Sherds of the Körös Culture from different features. 1: Trench 1/2nd spit (Inv. no. 78.120.18). 2: Trench I/NW,2nd spit (Inv. no.78.120.12). 3: Trench I/NNW, 2nd spit (Inv. no. 78.118.21). 4: Trench I/NNW, 2nd spit (Inv. no. 78.120.5). 5: Trench I/NW, 3rd spit (Inv. no. 78.120.13). 6:Trench IVA/2nd spit (Inv.no. 78.118.19). 7: Trench I/NNW, 4th spit (Inv. no. 78.120.21). 8: Trench I/NNW, 2nd spit (Inv. no. 78.118.10). 9: Trench I/NNW,2nd spit (Inv. no. 78.120.9). 10: Trench II/2nd spit (Inv. no. 78.118.4; P.90.182, P.90.184).

192 –

Fig. 120 - Endrõd, site 3/45. Plastic decorated sherds (6-9), fragmented human (1 and 5) and animal clay figurines (25) clay altars (1-14) and a small ball(10) of the Körös Culture from different features and depths. 1: Trench II/West, 3rd spit (Inv. no. 78.35.1). 2: Trench IV/2nd spit (Inv. no. 78.35.3). 3: TrenchI/South, 2nd spit (Inv. no. 78.35.4). 4: Trench I/North, 2nd spit (Inv. no. 78.35.2). 5: Trench IV/A, 2nd spit (Inv. no. 78.117.4). 6: Trench IV,1st spit (Inv. no.78.35.12). 7: Trench VI/2nd spit. 8: Trench I/North, 2nd spit. 9: Trench II/West, 2nd spit. 10: Trench V/2nd spit. 11: Trench II/East, 2nd spit. 12: TrenchII/West, 2nd spit. 13: Trench I/North, 2nd spit. 14: Trench III/SE, 2nd spit (P.85.027).

– 193

Fig. 121 - Endrõd, site 3/45. Vessel fragments (1-4 and 7-12) and fragmented net-weight of Szarvas type (5-6) of the Körös Culture from different depthsand features. 1: Trench VI/2nd spit (Inv. no. 78.118.19). 2: Trench IV/2nd spit (Inv. no. 78.120.1). 3: Trench I/NNW, 2nd spit (Inv. no. 78.118.13). 4: TrenchI/Middle, 2nd spit (Inv. no. 78.117.13). 5: Trench IV/3rd spit (Inv. no. 78.117.13). 6: Trench VI/2nd spit (Inv. no. 78.117.12). 7: Trench I/NW, 2nd spit (Inv.no. 78.120.14). 8: Trench IV/2nd spit (Inv. no. 78.120.8). 9: Trench II/East, 2nd spit (Inv. no. 78.120.15). 10: Trench VI/2nd spit (Inv. no. 78.118.20). 11:Trench I/NW, 3rd spit (Inv. no. 78.118.17). 12: Trench I/Middle, 3rd spit (Inv. no. 78.118.14; P.90.182, P90.184).

194 –

Fig. 122 - Endrõd, site 3/45 (1-4) and Gyoma, site 4/51. Finds of the Körös Culture. 1-2: Trench II/East, 3rd spit (Inv. no. 78.121.1). 3: Trench II/West, 2nd spit(Inv. no. 78.7.1). 4: Trench VI/, 2nd spit (Inv. no. 78.118.3). 5: Excavated during intensive field survey, coming from a refuse pit (Inv. no. 78.263.1; P.108.441).

– 195

Fig. 123 - Endrõd, site 3/158. Features and finds of the 1985 rescue operations in the site of the Körös Culture and the Early ALP. 1: Reconstructed plan ofALP-pit in the body of the embankment with the position of Grave 1. Section A-B of the pit (D.22.644). 3: Grave 1 of the Early ALP (D.22.160). Necklacefrom the grave, made of Spondylus beads (D.22.168).

196 –

Fig. 124 - Endrõd, site 3/158. Grave 1/1985 (1; P.127.920) and ceramic finds (2-5) of the Latest Körös-Earliest ALP=Szatmár phase from Pit 1(P.140.273-P.163.640).

– 197

Fig. 125 - Stray finds of the Körös Culture from different sites of the Szarvas Topography area. 1: Animal figurine from Endrõd, site 3/82 (Inv. no. 78.88.4). 2: Head of human clay figurine with eyes made of shell inlay (Inv. no. 78.88.3; D.12.116). 3: Grave of the Körös Culture from Endrõd, site 3/82 (afterMAKKAY in MRT8, 1989: 156). 4-5: Complete net weight of Szarvas type and small rounded vessel from Szarvas, site 8/105, Arany János street 30-32(P.87.032a-b; Inv. no. 78.10.1). 6: Head of a human figurine from Gyoma, site 4/65, surface finds during intesive field survey. 7: Rim fragment of an ALPbowl with face representation. Find made during intensive field survey on the site Endrõd, 3/6 (Inv. no. 78.34.30; P.85.031). 8: Szarvas, site 8/8: fragmentof a Szakálhát face vessel, found in Trench V/West, 20-60 cm (P.85.031; after MAKKAY, 2001: back cover). Knob in the shape of a human head of anALP-vessel, found on site Endrõd, 3/50 during intensive field survey (Inv. no. 78187.1; P.85.031).

198 –

10. ENDRÕD, SITE 3/82 (fig. 125)

The site is located north of the Old Körös bed, along the southern bank of the southernmost Old BerettyóRiver, a northern tributary of the Triple Körös (fig. 1, 8). A some 7 m high Pit-grave Culture kurgan190 was builtabove the Neolithic and Copper Age deposits of the Körös, ALP, Szakálhát and Tiszapolgár Cultures. Thefamous Hungarian novelist and historian, Ferenc Móra, director of the Szeged Museum, carried out a trialexcavation in 1929. He discovered mostly Körös Culture pottery and two or three crouched skeletons ofthe same period, one of which probably had a footed vessel as grave goods, while the skull of anothergrave was ‘painted’ with red ochre (MAKKAY in MRT8, 1989: 156 and 157).

The old river had already washed away the northern part of the settlement, and its work was completed by digomakers who excavated four large clay pits along the settlement slope, destroying hundreds of Neolithic, CopperAge and La Tène features. The site surface was literally covered with potsherds of the above-mentioned periods,amongst which was a broken animal figurine (fig. 125, 1), the head of a small human statuette the eyes of whichonce had a shell inlay. We recorded the remains of a child burial in the fill of a rubbish pit, and excavated thecrouched skeleton lying on its left side (fig. 125, 3) (MAKKAY in MRT8, 1989: 156, fig. 12).

11. SZARVAS, SITE 8/56 (fig. 118)

This extremely important, never excavated site lies northeast of Szarvas, along the southern bank of the wideflooded area of the old bed of the Körös River (fig. 1, 3). Its rich surface remains were already known since thebeginning of the prehistoric archaeology in Hungary, in the wake of the 1876 Prehistoric World Congress inBudapest (MAKKAY in MRT8, 1989: 422, notes 1 and 2). In the area of the Fishermen’s farm, obsidian flakes, apierced stone mace head (STARNINI and SZAKMÁNY, 1998: figs. 8, 4 and 18, 2), a fragment of serpentine stoneaxe, nicely decorated vessel fragments and a few broken bone tools were collected before 1879. The locallandlord, Géza Bolza, carried out a short excavation before 1921 and a few finds entered the collections of theHNM. Archduke Joseph Habsburg visited his excavations in 1926 and, as a result of his interest, E.Krecsmarik191 opened two trial-trenches in 1926 and again 1927, whose aim was to discover prehistoric burials.He managed to recover “many interesting and outstanding antiquities, amongst them human skeletons, boneawls, a rubbing stone, decorated pottery fragments, yellow ochre and bones of domesticated animals”(MAKKAY in MRT8, 1989: 422). 18 fragments belonged to a wide, nicely decorated, funnel-shaped bowl laterrestored. KRECSMARIK’s (1915; 1915a) statements concerning the Körös crouched burials are contradictory.The finds from these early excavations were lost at the end of World War Two, and the few Körös Culture findsat present in the collections of the Szarvas Museum, are from the survey of J. Palov, the then museum director.

It was my mistake not to recognise its richness and importance and never start an excavation at this site.During our intensive 1974-1978 surveys, especially in the autumn of 1978, we collected typical Körös Culturepottery, because the almost vertical walls of the large digo-pit excavated before 1974 were pulled down a fewweeks before, and an incredibly large number of Körös artefacts were visible on the surface, among which werewhite-painted fragments. Pollen, soil and animal bone samples were collected in 1981 and again 1982, when twonarrow trial trenches were opened at the edge of the digo pit. During the field surveys and the 1981-1982excavations, we collected a complete Early Körös ceramic assemblage, which includes many fragments ofred-slipped and black-on-red painted sherds, belonging to footed and pedestalled bowls, etc. An exquisite findwas a reconstructed dark monochrome, high-necked, footed jar (fig. 118)192.

190. The traditional name of the site is Lyukashalom, a mound with a central depression, excavated by treasure hunters to recover gold and other valuables. 191. For his personality see the introduction to the descripiton of Szarvas 8/23 and 8/8.192. For its close parallel see fig. 58, 3 from Endrõd 3/35. The similarity of the two vessels suggests their contemporaneity.

– 199

CULTURES – PHASES SITES – FEATURES – TYPES

Late Szakálhát – Early Tisza Culture

Szarvas 1: unpublished finds Szarvas 21

Classic Szakálhát Phase

Szarvas 8: excavated finds in Trenches I-III Szarvas 23: sporadic finds from the northern part of the site Szarvas 40: partly excavated house of the Szakálhát Culture Békésszentandrás 86: ritual deposit

Early Szakálhát Phase

Endrõd 6: sporadic finds Endrõd 35: layer above the Körös Pit in Trench III and Grave 1, with Late ALP, Esztár painted pottery and Zseliz imports Endrõd 36: Early Szakálhát layer with latest ALP and Esztár painted sherds and fineblack-dark grey polished ware Békésszentandrás, Furugy 28: the lowest Szakálhát deposits

Late Classic ALP

The Furugy Phase

Endrõd 6: sporadic finds before 1982 Endrõd 35: ALP Pit in Trench III Endrõd 42, with Esztár and Early Zseliz imports Békésszentandrás, Furugy 28: the lowest deposits

Classic ALP

Endrõd 6: 1982 Black Pit, and the ALP Pit in Trench XXVIII Szarvas 8: surface finds Szarvas 23: stray finds in the northern part of the siteSzarvas 102: mostly unpublished finds

The Gyoma Phase of theALP: with Szatmár andwithout Late Körös andProtovinèa types

Gyoma 107: mostly unpublished finds

Latest Körös = Körös IIIb:short settlement phase ofKörös + Protovinèa + EarlyALP

Endrõd 6: Pit 4c in Trench VIII, and the Eastern Pit in Trench XVIIIEndrõd 119: short re-settlement after the end of the Classic Körös times: sporadic presenceof developed Early ALP (Szatmár) incised ware in Trench 18 Szarvas 23: Pit 4/2:developed Early ALP incised ware

Late Körös = Körös IIIa:Körös + Protovinèa + EarlyALP

Endrõd 6: the grey layer of 1982 below the mass grave and the upper part of theWestern Pit in Trench XVIII; Grave A and Grave 1 Szarvas 23: Pit 1 in Trench VIII/1979 and Pit 4/2, 1988

Classic Körös = Körös IIb:earliest Protovinèa warewithout Szatmár (EarlyALP)

Endrõd 39: Pit in Trench XVIII Endrõd 6: a few types of the grey layer of 1982 below the mass grave, and the lowestpart of the Western Pit grave and the lower part of the Western Pit Szarvas 23: Sacrificial Pit 3/3: Körös and Protovinèa types without Szatmár (EarlyALP)

Classic Körös = Körös IIa:appearance of Protovinèashapes

Endrõd 35: Pit III in Trench III/1975 Endrõd 39: most of the houses and pits, with earliest Szatmár like incised ware in thefinal subphases Endrõd 119: House 1 above Pit 5, the latest deposits of Pit 13, Pit 11 with Oven O5, theburning of House 1 with Graves 1-4 near House 1, and the last days of O8 near Pit 14,end of Pit 12, Pit 13, Pit 5 and Sacrificial Pit A1 below House 1 Szarvas 8: main occupation phase Szarvas 23: other features of the site without Protovinèa types

Early Körös = Körös Ib:(the beginning of ClassicKörös)

Endrõd 119: deposits of House 12 above Pit 12, and Pits 10, 12, Sacrificial Pit A5 etc.

Szarvas 23: occurrence of white and black paint in Pits I/1974 and VI/1975

Early Körös = Körös Ia:the white-painted phase

Endrõd 119: the oldest part of Pit 12Szarvas 8: Pit 1in Trenches III-IV Szarvas 23: the lower part of Pit I/1974 Szarvas 56: sporadic white-painted sherds

Table 14 - Comparative chronological chart of the analysed sites.

200 –

12. MÉHTELEK-NÁDAS (figs. 126-131)

This site lies in the area called Szatmár of co. Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg, in the easternmost part ofpresent-day Hungary. It is located on a 2 m rise near the left bank of the River Túr, close to its dead arm calledNádas (reeds) or Nagyéger, near the Szamos Valley (fig. 1, 11). A contemporaneous settlement was found atHomorodu de Sus (Felsõhomoród) in western Transylvania, in the Homoród Valley, one of the southerntributaries of the Szamos. It was excavated by T. BÁDER (1968) in the 1960s. The material from this site, exceptfor a few clay figurines, is still unpublished and most of it has been discarded193.

One of the most dangerous floods in the history of Hungary happened in 1970. When the Romanianauthorities blew up the Szamos River embankment between Satu Mare and the Hungarian-Romanian border, thetide flooded the Túr Valley region wiping out village buildings in Méhtelek and its surroundings. A few monthslater, an embankment was planned and built across the Kraszna and Túr River valleys along theHungarian-Romanian border. This earthwork was made as a dam but its alleged purpose was that of anembankment. In the area of Méhtelek, it crosses the site along the bank of the Nádas, some 200-300 m south ofthe village, and the clay for building the dam was dug out at this place. A man working with a heavy machinediscovered pottery fragments and brought them to the Nyíregyháza Museum.

The surface collections and the rescue excavations carried out by J. Makkay, N. Kalicz and P. Raczky in1972-1973, revealed part of an Early Neolithic settlement, whose rich ceramic assemblage was interpreted as aregional variant of the Körös Culture. Exceptional aspects of the Méhtelek materials consist of its rich chippedstone industry (CHAPMAN, 1986; STARNINI, 1993; 1994: fig. 131) and ceramic figurines, not only because theyrepresent one of the largest Körös Culture collection, but also for the occurrence of hitherto unknown typesamong which are schematic, flat human representations (fig. 129). Only a few short preliminary reports havebeen written on this assemblage (KALICZ and MAKKAY, 1974; 1974a; 1977; MAKKAY, 2003), which wasdisplayed in the Nyíregyháza Museum in 1974, and in those of Constanþa and Cluj in 1995-1996 (MAKKAY andIERKOSAN, 1995). At present the entire collection is inventoried in the Jósa András Museum, Nyíregyháza.

A large-scale surface survey was made by J. Makkay and N. Kalicz in 1972 over the whole supposed area ofthe site, on both sides of the embankment. The two excavations carried out in the late spring and September 1973covered the southern parts of the site affected by the embankment construction works, since the ploughed soiland the uppermost part of the subsoil had been removed to reach the virgin clay. Five of the seven trenches wereopened south and within the embankment in order to recover the surviving, mainly the middle and lower parts ofthe refuse pits (figs. 126 and 127), while Trenches III and 6 were excavated within the embankment. Two longtrial trenches, north of the embankment, led to the discovery of one small refuse pit in Trench 7 (fig. 127, top).The northernmost long trench was opened in the northern, unsettled part of the site. A detailed description of therefuse pits and other structural remains, among which is a ’nest’ of burnt hazelnuts (FÜZES, 1990: 164 and 165)in the burnt layer of the pit in Trench III (fig. 127) was given in one of the preliminary reports (KALICZ andMAKKAY, 1977: 15-17). The pottery assemblage (fig. 130) and the clay figurines (fig. 129) will be published intwo forthcoming volumes (MAKKAY and STARNINI, forthcoming 2; forthcoming 3).

Méhtelek lies over 150 km northeast of the main Körös Culture distribution area. This is the reason why thesite probably does not belong to the main Körös Culture core. Nevertheless the finds are not very different fromthose from the Körös assemblages from central Transylvania, first of all Gura Baciului near Cluj (LAZAROVICI

and MAXIM, 1995194; MAXIM, 1999; LAZAROVICI and LAZAROVICI, 2003: figs. 1 and 4-14). The Körös Culture never spread to the north Alföld region and the Tisza Valley, despite the fact that many

Körös sites occur in similar environments south of this distribution line (KALICZ et al., 1998). The explanation isthat the North Alföld Plain Late Mesolithic bands (KERTÉSZ, 2003: 493 and 494)195 formed a barrier to thespread of the Körös Culture. I consider this population barrier more important than the CEB AEB model (CentralEuropean-Balkan Agroecological Barrier) (KERTÉSZ and SÜMEGI, 2003; SÜMEGI, 2003) for the furtherdevelopment of the Körös Culture and the origin of the ALP. My questions are: why did the spread stop at thisline, and why no Körös site occurs in similar environments further north in the Tisza Valley? Also the soil

193. On the occasions of my repeated visits to the Satu Mare Museum in the early 1970s, I had the possibility to study the newly excavated material kept in agreat number of large plastic bags by the courtesy of T. Báder. Nowadays the Satu Mare Museum keeps only a few fragments of the excavated finds.194. This final report illustrates the painted pottery (coloured plates = PC I-X) and 68 unpainted potsherds in figs. 39-50. The painted sherds are very similarto those from Szarvas 8/23 both in technology and decoration (MAXIM, 1999: Pl. II-IV). Both white-on-red and dark-on-red painted sherds are present inphase IB (MAXIM, 1999: Pl. IV, 11) and very probably also before it (LAZAROVICI and MAXIM, 1995: PC IX: 1-6 and 9, etc.)195. The excavations carried out by R. Kertész (pers. comm. 2004) during the summer of 2003 led to the discovery of a Late Mesolithic site in thesouthernmost part of Co. Heves.

– 201

differences were not a determinant factor. In effect, although the Körös farmers preferred to settle good, looseand fertile soils for their agricultural activities, nevertheless they occupied the Túr Valley around Méhtelek withits very poor soils, while they did not spread farther north in the excellent loamy soils of the central Tisza Valleyand its levees, which are ideal for farming. Furthermore the Körös group of Méhtelek, which played a significantrole in down-the-line exchange of Tokaj obsidian towards the obsidian consuming areas of Transylvania and theKörös Valley196, did not cross the Tisza to occupy the sources near Tokaj which lies on the right bank of the river.In my opinion the explanation is that they did not settle although they traded lithics with the local Late Mesolithichunter-gatherers. At the same time they crossed the river and moved eastwards to the flatlands of the right bank ofthe river in Kárpátalja, the present Carpathian Ukraine (POTUSHNIAK, 2004). The Tisza River Valley apparentlywas not an insurmountable natural obstacle, which would restrain the eastern movement of the Körös groups. Thedistribution line of the Körös Culture was a different boundary: a population barrier of native inhabitants.

In my opinion the Neolithic way-of-life was adopted by the hunter-gatherers who lived north of the KörösCulture borderline under the influences of the Körös Culture only at a later date, after a delaying adaptationperiod. A new culture, the ALP, developed in the north Alföld Plain from a local population bases.

Fig. 126 - Méhtelek-Nádas. Plan of the 1973 excavations.

196. See the obsidians from Szarvas 8/23, Pits 4/2 and 3/3: figs. 31-34 and Appendix I.

202 –

Fig. 127 - Méhtelek-Nádas. Plans and sections of Trenches 1-7 (I-VII) with refuse pits.

– 203

Fig. 128 - Méhtelek-Nádas. 1: General view of the site with Pit 1-3/á, from the south (P.71.165). 2: Pit II (2) from the east (P.75.407). 3: Part of Pit 5 fromthe south (P.75.410). 4: Part of Pit 5 from the west (P.75.412). 5: Pit III (3) with section taken from the south (P.74.164). 6: Pit 1-3/á from the south(P.71.201). 7: Pit 1-3/á from the south (P.71.710). 8: Pit 1-3/á from the SW (P.71.208).

204 –

Fig. 129 - Méhtelek-Nádas. Clay figurines from different features. 1: Reconstructed large figurine from Pit 4-5/á (Josa András Museum, Nyíregyháza, Inv.no. 94.176.86; P.75.273, P.75.275). 2: Upper part of a clay figurine from Trench II (Inv. no. 94.176.67; P.75.261). 3: Torso of a clay figurine from Pit 1 inTrench IV (Inv. no. 94.176.97; P.75.261). 4: Flat figurine from Trench 1/1972 (Inv. no. 94.176.54; P.71.514, P.23.924). 5: Flat figurine from Pit 1-3/á (Inv.no. 94.176.63; P.71.514, P.23.924). 6: Miniature flat figurine from Pit 4-5/á (Inv. no. 94.176.98; P.23.924). 7: Lower part of a flat figurine from Pit 6/á(Inv. no. 94.176.91; P.23.924). 8: Flat figurine from Pit 4-5/á (Inv. no. 94.176.81; P.23.924).

– 205

Fig. 130 - Méhtelek-Nádas. Vessels of the Körös Culture from different features. 1: Pit II/?, 2nd spit (P. 71.437). 2: Pit 1/á, 2nd spit (Inv. no. 94.176.4;P.71.428). 3: Pit II/á, 4th spit (Inv. no. 94.176.6; P.71.430). 4: Pit II/á, 6th spit (Inv. no. 94.176.14.; P.71.424). 5: Pit II/á, 3rd spit (Inv. no. 94.176.13, P.71.426). 6: Pit 5/á, North, 4th spit (Inv. no. 94.176.109; P.75.272).

206 –

Fig. 131 - Méhtelek-Nádas. Stone implements (1-4 and 9-10) (after STARNINI, 1994: figs. 3 and 4) and small finds (5-8) from different features. 1: Bladefrom Banat flint. - 2: Small obsidian core. 3: Large obsidian blade core. 4: Geometrics. 5: Animal head from pit in Trench III (Inv. no. 94.176.107;P.75.259). 6: Animal head from pit in Trench III (Inv. no. 94.176.105; P.75.259). 7: Clay ring from pit in Trench III (Inv. no. 94.176.126; P.75.259). 8: Clayring from Pit 1-3/á (Inv. no. 94.176.127; P.75.259). 9: Polished edge tool in a reworking attempt. Stray find. 10: Small polished adze.

– 207

13. FURTA-CSÁTÓ (figs. 132-135)

The rescue excavations carried out at Furta, a small village south of Debrecen near the Berettyó Valley, led to the recovery of a rich Körös Culture refuse pit on the northern terrace of an old riverbed of the Sebes Körös (fig.1, 10). This discovery is of great interest because it produced a new evidence for the region between the centralGreat Hungarian Plain and Méhtelek territory. Apart from the sporadic finds from Berettyóujfalu (KUTZIÁN,1944: 33) and a single Körös feature excavated by the Hungarian-Soviet expedition between 1977 and 1982(unpublished), Furta is the first Körös excavated site in Co. Hajdú-Bihar.

It is located in the narrow land parcel between the valley and the Szeged-Debrecen highway, where anembankment was built in 1967, and a clay pit was opened at Vereshalom (Red Mound, perhaps a kurgan builton the Neolithic site). A rescue excavation was carried out in September of the same year, after the cornharvest. It was conducted by Ibolya M. Nepper, who was so kind to put her field notes at my disposal, duringher first year in the staff of the Debrecen Museum. The pottery is now in the Debrecen Museum, where I hadthe opportunity to study it four decades ago. The drawings and photographs were made in the same year, aftersome pottery restoration was finished.

In March 1967 the bulldozer destroyed half of a ca. 5 m wide Körös Culture refuse pit. The rescueexcavation was limited to its remaining part. It covered an area of some 70 sq m: 4 graves, 1 fireplace and thefired clay fragments of a surface Körös house were found (fig. 133, 4). The first Trench A, 8x4 m, was openedin a N-S direction. It was later extended on its eastern side (8x11 m), called Trench B (or occasionally newtrench = extension U). The excavation was carried out in spits of 20-30 cm. The house remains, 2-3 cm thick,were found at a depth of some 50 cm, at the bottom of the second spit, consisting of burnt wattle-and-daubfragments. The potsherds were kept separated according to their position above and below the house. Laterwork revealed that the thin deposit of fired clay did not belong to a surface house but it was probably a claydeposition in the fill of the deep refuse pit. The 11th arbitrary layer reached its bottom at a depth of some 180cm (fig. 133, 5). A some 5 cm thick layer of fish scales and shells was found here. Occasionally hearths, i.e.burnt surfaces, were found in the fill of the pit at different depths. Vessel fragments with many shells in theirinner surfaces were collected close to T1 (Fireplace 1, not represented in the map).

The human bones of four graves were also found. They are:• Grave 1: crouched skeleton of an adult on its left side, whose finger bones were found in front of its face. It was

NE-SW oriented. The skeleton, measured in situ, was 90 cm long (fig. 134, 2). • Grave 2: very crouched skeleton of a 5-6 years old child. It was found in the southern part of Trench A, at a

depth of 140 cm, at the edge of the refuse pit, on the top of the virgin clay soil (fig. 133, 3).• Grave 3: crouched skeleton of a child of undefined age, lying on its left side, WSW-ENE oriented. It was found

at a depth of 155 cm, near Grave 2. The length of the skeleton was 45 cm, measured in situ. The bones werefound in a pit excavated into the yellow virgin clay. The photograph and the drawing of the skeleton are missingfrom the original field report.

• Grave 4 was found in Trench B near to the borderline between Trenches A and B. It is a very crouched skeleton 65cm long of an adult, lying on its right side, oriented towards WSW. Its hands were drawn before the face (fig. 133, 1).

• Grave goods and ochre were not noticed. Graves 1-3 were grouped in the southernmost part of Trench A.The reconstructed vessels are represented by both Körös Culture classic shapes and decorative patterns, and

Protovinèa carinated and pedestalled pots (figs. 132, 4-9; 134, 1-6 and 135, 1-4). Even though the fill wasdeposited in short, subsequent phases, the assemblage represents a single cultural period attributable to thetransition between the Classic Körös and Protovinèa, although a few Late Protovinèa types were also collected.

208 –

Fig. 132 - Protovinèa (1-10) and ALP vessels from different sites. 1-3 and 10: Szarvas, site 8/23, Pit 1 in Trench VIII (D22.162, D22.164-166). 4-9:Furta-Csátó. 4: Trench A/ 3rd spit and New Extension, spits 3-5 (Inv. no. 77.1.15; P.71.527). 5: New extension/1st spit (P.71.519). 6: From House 1 (Inv. no.77.1.21; P.68.054, P.71.531). 7: Trench A/7th spit (Inv. no. 77.1.25; P.68.064-065). 8: Trench A/4th spit (Inv. no. 77.1.2.; P.68.049). 9: Trench A/8th spit(Inv. no. 77.1.4; P.68.064-065). 11: Endrõd, site 3/6, the layer below the 1982 mass grave, 100-120 cm (D.22.162).

– 209

Fig. 133 - Furta-Csátó. 1: Grave 4. 2: Grave 1. 3: Grave 2. 4-5: Trenches A and B and section A-B (courtesy of Mrs. I. Nepper).

210 –

Fig. 134 - Furta-Csátó. 1: Reconstructed, fragmentary bird-shaped vessel from Trench A/2nd spit (Inv. no. 77.1.1; P.71.528). 2: Pedestalled round bowlfrom Trench A/5th spit (Inv. no. 77.1.3). 3: Large storage jar (P.71.526), height 40 cm. 4: Coarse ware bowl from Trench B/7th spit (Inv. no. 77.1.8;P.71.521). 5: Large bowl from Trench B/6th spit (P.60.352). 6: Pedestalled bowl from Trench A/5th spit (P.60.352).

– 211

Fig. 135 - Furta-Csátó (1-4) and Tiszacsege-Homokbánya (6-16), vessel shapes. 1: 9th spit in Trench A and in extension B (P.71.529). 2: New extension/1th

spit (P.71.520). 3: 7th spit (P.68.065). 4: New extension/8th spit (P.68.064). 5: Szentes-Szentlászló, pedestalled vessel with strongly carinated bowl part.Stray find in the Szentes Museum, Inv. no. 54.5.1. 6-16: Tiszacsege-Homokbánya. 6: P.75.268. 7: P.71.443. 8: P.75.169. 9: P.71.445. 10: P.75.271. 11:Height 40 cm, P.75.267. 12: P.75.268. 13: P.75.270. 14: P.75.268. 15: P.71.417-P.75.269.

212 –

14. TISZACSEGE-HOMOKBÁNYA (figs. 135-140)

The site was discovered by Fr. Kõszegi in 1955 (fig. 1, 12). It was investigated by J. Makkay and N. Kalicz in 1969 (twice) and again with P. Raczky, in 1973. The undisturbed parts of a long, oval pit-house were excavatedin the three seasons. The feature was partly destroyed in the profile of a sand pit. Although the original measuresof the pit-house could not be ascertained, its shape was similar to that of other oval pit-houses of the Early andClassic ALP excavated at Gyoma 4/107 (MAKKAY in MRT8, 1989) and Szarvas 8/102 (MAKKAY, 1982a: fig. 1). A preliminary report on the pottery assemblage was published in 1977 (KALICZ and MAKKAY, 1977: 165, No.

Fig. 136 - Tiszacsege-Homokbánya. The painted pig-shaped vessel from the pit-house (after KALICZ and MAKKAY, 1979: Pl. 4, 8a-b).

– 213

301; Pls. 4-8, 167 and 168). The largely unpublished assemblage (figs. 135, 6-16, and 136-139) is represented bya very rich collection of painted vessels of Early ALP or Szatmár type (fig. 137) and characteristic Szatmárcoarse ceramics resembling Körös types (fig. 139, 20-29) and typical shoulders (fig. 139, 1, 3 and 17), rims (fig.139, 1-7), hemispherical bowls and large vessels (fig. 139, 20 and 22). The complete vessels are mainlyrepresented by globular shapes, although pedestalled high bowls are also common (fig. 135, 6-16). Fragmentsdecorated with linear, incised patterns partly belong to a large container (fig. 138), which, together with othersherds, shows a characteristic, developed ALP incision technique. The fragments of a pig-shaped vessel withcharacteristic Szatmár paint (fig. 136) were collected during three different seasons. The assemblage ischaracteristic of the Szatmár (Early ALP) classic phase.

Fig. 137 - Tiszacsege-Homokbánya. Fragments of painted vessels from the pit-house (P. 75.237).

214 –

Fig. 138 - Tiszacsege-Homokbánya. Linear decorated fragments of the Early ALP (Szatmár phase) from the pit-house (P.75.238, P.75.241).

– 215

Fig. 139 - Tiszacsege-Homokbánya. Fragments of shouldered bowls with low neck (1-5) and coarse vessels of different shapes and motifs (6-28) from thepit-house (P.75.236, P.75.239, P.75.240, P.75.243, P.75.247, P.75.249 and P.75.852).

216 –

Fig. 140 - Tiszacsege-Homokbánya. Bone implements from the pit-house (P.74.924).

– 217

15. BATTONYA-BASARÁGA

A short trial excavation was carried out by J.J. Szabó and J. Makkay in 1977 in the low-lying site (fig. 1,13). Part of a rubbish pit, which contained coarse Körös potsherds was uncovered (SZABÓ, 1977; MAKKAY and STARNINI, forthcoming 2).

16. ALP IMPORTS IN THE KÖRÖS VALLEY KÖRÖS FEATURES

Only the ALP vessel fragments found in Körös features are listed in table 15 below. For this reason the ALPsherds from the ’black pit’ of Endrõd 6 excavated in 1982 are not included.

Site Feature Description and figure

Szarvas 8/23 Pit 1 in Trench VIII, 40-80 wall fragment, geometric motif (fig. 142, 7)

Pit 3/8 in Silo 3 wall fragment, wavy line (fig. 141, 4)

Pit 4/2 in Silo 4 pedestal, vertical lines (fig. 141, 2)

bowl fragment, fine surface (fig. 141, 5)

pedestal, archaic geometric motif (fig. 141, 9)

bowl fragment, geometric motif (fig. 141, 10)

neck fragment of a jar, archaic geometric motif (fig. 141, 11)

bowl fragment, geometric motif (fig. 141, 12)

jar neck fragment, archaic geometric motif (fig. 141, 16)

pedestal, archaic geometric motif (fig. 141, 21)

bowl fragment, wide incised geometric lines (fig. 141, 20)

Pit 4/3 in Silo 4 fragment of a large bowl, wide geometric motif (fig. 141, 13)

bowl fragment, characteristic arrowhead motif (fig. 141, 15)

bowl fragment, wide geometric motif (fig. 141, 19)

Pit 5/2 in Silo 5 bowl fragment, fine incised lines (fig. 141, 3)

pedestal, parallel incised lines (fig. 141, 6)

pedestal, wavy and parallel dotted lines (fig. 141, 14)

Stray find large, wide pedestal (fig. 141, 7)

Szarvas 8/8 III/Pit 1, 60-90 pedestal, fine surface, wide lines (fig. 142, 10)

III/a, 40-60 wall fragment, channelling-like lines (fig. 142, 11)

I/South, 60-85 wall fragment, geometric lines, worn surface (fig. 142, 15)

Endrõd 3/6 XVIII/W. Pit bowl fragment, classic type (fig. 141, 8)

Pit VIII/4c bowl fragment, classic type, worn (fig. 142, 13)

wall fragment of a large jar, worn (fig. 142, 14)

Endrõd 3/39 I/1 bowl fragment, characteristic geometric lines (fig, 142, 5)

IV/E, 20-70 wall fragment, classic type (fig.142, 6)

V/West, 75-95 rim part of a high bowl, classic type, worn (fig. 141, 1)

XVIII/Pit 1, S, 90 cm rim fragment of a pedestalled bowl, incised on the inside (fig. 142, 1)

XIX/S, 60-90 rim fragment of a pedestalled bowl, wide lines (fig. 142, 4)

XX/House, S, 60-90 bowl fragment, shallow geometric lines (fig. 142, 3)

XXIX/N, 60-90 fragment of a large bowl, classic geometric lines (fig. 142, 8)

Stray find rim fragment of a small bowl, classic (fig. 142, 2)

Endrõd 3/119 Trench 18 lower part of high bowl (MAKKAY, 1987: fig. 4, 4; 1992: 127, note 14)

22-23, Pit 10, 120 cm wall fragment, characteristic geometric motif (fig. 142, 12)

26 and 28, Pit 11 ALP fragment, at present lost

52, 0-30, stray find characteristic human head knob on wall (fig. 142, 9)

Endrõd 3/158 Pit 1 bowl fragment, archaic lines (fig. 141, 17)

Pit 1 bowl fragment, archaic lines (fig. 141, 18)

Table 15 - ALP potsherds in the Körös Valley Körös Culture sites and features.

218 –

17. DISCUSSION

17.1. PREFACE

One criticisms regarding the Körös research deals with the poor published evidence compared with the largenumber of small, trial and rescue excavations carried out by four or five generations of Hungarian archaeologistswho have amassed a tremendous amount of materials since the beginning of the last century197.

This chapter discusses the chronology and origin of the Early Neolithic in the Carpathian Basin and providessome evidence from other sites and excavations. A short introductory remark regards a) the importance of thehomogeneity or ’timelessness’ of the Körös pottery and b) the radiocarbon chronology.

a) The territorial distribution and chronological homogeneity of this culture indicates that the Körös Culturepottery shapes and finish show an established background rather than new behaviours and ideas. Consequentlythe types lasted for long without changes. The vessel repertoire is represented by ‘timeless’ shapes unaffected byminor technological, stylistic and fashion changes as, for instance, the slow appearance of the fine, blackpolishing to the emergence of the Protovinèa phase. The barbotine and pinching decoration, the plain ormonochrome wares, many of the vessel shapes198, the bone implements and also the vessel manufacturingtechnique, as for instance the method of preparing specific bases (MAKKAY and STARNINI, forthcoming 2: figs.

18-20) are representative of these unchanging or slowly changing categories. Thus, in my opinion, it isunreasonable to build chronological sequences and subdivisions on the basis of pottery styles and typespercentages from both features and settlements.

The barbotine pottery statistics presented by O. TROGMAYER (1968) show that this decoration is notrepresented in the first Early Neolithic settlements of the Tisza-Maros corner, while it makes its appearance andshows a tendency to increase during the later phases. According to the above-mentioned author, the increasingpercentage of barbotine decoration is an adequate criterion for the definition of the internal chronology of theKörös Culture. This method is unreliable because he grouped different barbotine categories (true, channelled,sparkling, etc.) in one single class (TROGMAYER, 1968: table in p. 9). In contrast, the barbotine pottery is presentin every feature of my Körös sites, among which is Pit 1 in Trenches I-II, 1974-1975, of Szarvas 8/23 and alsorefuse Pits 12 and 13 at Endrõd 3/119. In two cases it was associated with white-on-red/brown painted sherds199.

b) The use of radiocarbon chronology. I have to explain why my views are different from those who supportthe reliability of radiocarbon dating.

The low number of Early and Middle Copper Age cemeteries with their small number of graves in theAlföld, and the scarcity of graves and burials in Transdanubia, allow us to draw a few conclusions regarding thechronology of the Copper Age, which contradict the results of the radiocarbon chronology. Up to 1972, 231Tiszapolgár Culture graves were found in 41 cemeteries in Hungary. Following the available data from theBodrogkeresztúr Culture, a single Tiszapolgár cemetery could contain maximum some 150 graves. TwoTiszapolgár cemeteries from eastern Slovakia (Velke Raškovce and Tibava) yielded 44 and 39 burialsrespectively. No single-phase cemetery has so far yielded 150 burials, although one can assume that there is nounexcavated Tiszapolgár cemetery with such a high number of graves. A single Tiszapolgár Culture cemeterymight have been used during two to five generations (50-150 years). If we consider the highest number of graves(150 graves/cemetery), we calculate a community of no more than 75 people per generation. Nevertheless, giventhat all the cemeteries discovered to date yielded significantly less than 150 graves and were used for longer thantwo generations, the size of each single social group must have been much lower than 75.

If we take into consideration a small group of farmers, each unit consists of at least two extended families,some 60 persons. Communities smaller than extended families never existed in both early and later prehistory.Consequently, the largest possible Tiszapolgár Culture cemetery (150 burials) contains the remains of three, ormore likely two, generations. If we hypothesise that one community used a cemetery during two burial phases,although at present we do not have any proof, then we have to conclude that the longest possible lifespan of theTiszapolgár Culture was maximum 150-200 years (MAKKAY, 1991: 326 and 327; 2004 and 2004a).

197. The first excavation carried out at a Körös site, which yielded identifiable remains of this culture, was that of Soma Sipos at Szarvas 8/23 in 1871-1872(KUTZIÁN, 1944, I: 5 and Pl. I, 1). According to this author the first authentic Körös finds were brought to light at Sövényháza, co. Csongrád, in or before1873: a fragment of a characteristic pitcher inventarised in the Hungarian National Museum. 198. See MAKKAY and STARNINI (forthcoming 2: figs. 1-9 [vessel shapes]; 10-17 [vessel bases]; 18-21 [manufacture of vessel bases]; 22-24 [paintedfragments]; 25 and 26 [red-slipped ware] and 27-32 [technology of surface finish and decoration ]).199. See MAKKAY and STARNINI (forthcoming 2: figs. 50, 3-7; 61, 1-5 and 63, 1-5 [Szarvas 8/23] and 290, 16; 291, 1-5 and 301, 1-6 [Endrõd 3/119] etc).

– 219

Fig. 141 - Imported ALP fragments from the Körös features of Endrõd 3/39 and Szarvas 8/23. 1: Endrõd, site 3/39, Trench V/1976, west, 75-95 cm. 2, 5,9-12, 16 and 20-21: Szarvas, site 8/23, Pit 2 in silo-Trench 4 (Pit 4/2). 3, 6 and 14: Szarvas, site 8/23, Pit 2 in silo-Trench 5 (Pit 5/2). 4: Szarvas, site 8/23, Pit8 in silo-Trench 3 (Pit 3/8). 7: Szarvas, site 8/23, stray find. 13, 15 and 19: Szarvas, site 8/23, Pit 3 in silo-Trench 4 (Pit 4/3). 17-18: Endrõd, site 3/158.

220 –

Fig. 142 - Imported ALP fragments from the Körös features from Endrõd 3/6, 3/39, 3/119 and Szarvas 8/8 and 8/23. 1-6 and 8: Endrõd, site 3/39. 1: TrenchXVIII/90 cm, pit (Inv. no. 79.6.698). 2: Stray find (Inv. no. 76.283.4). 3: House 1 in Trench XX, the southern corner (Inv. no. 76.6.813). 4: Trench XIX/South,6-90 cm. 5: House 1 in Trench I (Inv. no.79.6.208). 6: Trench IV/East, 20-70 cm (Inv. no. 78.84.80). 8: Trench XXIX/North, 60-90 cm. 7: Szarvas, site 8/23, Pit 1 in Trench VIII/40-80 cm (Inv. no. 79.5.77). 9 and 12: Endrõd, site 3/119. 9: Trench 52/0-30 cm. 12: Pit 10 in Trenches 20-23/below 120 cm. 10-11 and 15:Szarvas, site 8/8. 10: Pit 1 in Trench III/60-90 cm. 11: Trench III/a, 40-60 cm. 15: Trench I/South, 60-85 cm. 13-14: Endrõd, site 3/6, Trench VIII/Pit 4c.

– 221

Fig. 143 - Decorated vessel fragments of ALP and Szakálhát type from Szarvas site 8/23 (4-10) and Endrõd site 3/158 (1-3) features. 1-3: Endrõd 3/158,ALP-pit. 4-10: Szarvas 8/23. 4 and 7: Pit 2 in silo Trench 4 (Pit 4/2). 5: Pit 3 in silo-Trench 5 (Pit 5/ 3). 6: Pit 6 in silo-Trench 5 (Pit 5/6). 8: Pit 3 insilo-Trench 3 (Pit 3/3). 9-10: Stray finds (drawings by E. Starnini).

222 –

The analysis of the contemporary LN cemeteries in Germany yielded the same result. The 77 burials from theRössen I cemetery belong to four different periods (22, 16, 10, 29 graves respectively). None of these periods lastedlonger than two or three generations (50-75 years). The entire series thus lasted not longer than 200-250 years. Iassume a similar time-span for the entire development of the Tiszapolgár and Bodrogkeresztúr Cultures that is amaximum of four centuries (MAKKAY, 1991: 326 and 327). This time-span is in good accordance with thechronology of the Transdanubian Balaton-Lasinja Culture, which is contemporaneous with the Late Tiszapolgár

Fig. 144 - Békésszentandrás-Furugy, site 1/28. 1: Trench II/30-60 cm. 2: Trench II/30-60 cm. 3: Trench III/North, 140-170 cm, outer wall was painted black between running spiral motif of Szakálhát type, incised lines are executed in ALP technique; grey polished inner surface. 4: Trench III/North, 140-170 cm,bowl with incised motifs of ALP-Szakálhát transitional type.

– 223

and Bodrogkeresztúr Cultures, which fall in the two centuries between 4000 and 3800 Cal BC (RACZKY, 1995: 60;HORVÁTH et al., 2003: 265). These data contradict the radiocarbon chronology that suggests that the two cultureslasted 1000 years or more, with the radiocarbon dating of the beginning of the Tiszapolgár Culture set at 4910 CalBC. Other Tiszapolgár Culture radiocarbon dates fall between 4795-3962 Cal BC at 1ó, representing a duration of833 years, while those of the Bodrogkeresztur Culture between 4327-3757 Cal BC (570 years), 1403 yearsaltogether. The following LCA Baden Culture is dated between ca 4000-3000 Cal BC (PARKINSON, 1999:

Fig. 145 - Békésszentandrás-Furugy, site 1/28. 1: Trench III: Late ALP shape. 2: Trench III/Southwest, 160-190 cm, characteristic pedestalled bowl of the ALPdecorated with ALP incision technique and with red crusted paint (darker stripes in the drawing: 2b, lighter ones in the photograph: 20). 3: Reconstructed bowl ofSzakálhát type from Trenches II-III decorated with a dark polished, running, spiral pattern and accompanying red-painted, running spirals.

224 –

Fig. 146 - Békésszentandrás-Furugy, site 1/28. 1: Trench III/North, 70-100 cm+100-120 cm, rim fragments of the upper part of an ALP pedestalled bowl, outside(left) and inside (right) with ALP-pattern. 2: Trench III/North, 70-100 cm, rim fragments from the upper part of an ALP pedestalled bowl, outside (left) incisedmotif with dark painted stripes in alternating fields, inside (right) dark painted stripes. 3: Trench III/80-150 cm, fragments from the upper part of an ALPpedestalled bowl with characteristic menadric incised pattern of ALP style, with dark paint in alternating fields. 4: Trench III/North, 100-120 cm, the same vesselform, with alternating field between incised lines of ALP type, painted red and polished dark. 5: Trench III/South, 160-190 cm, ALP pit. ALP incised fragment(from the upper part of a pedestalled bowl) with incision and red crusted paint. 6: Trench III/North, 70-100 cm, painted rim fragment of an ALP pedestalledbowl: incised-painted pattern on the outer wall (left) and dark painted stripes on the inner wall (right). 7: Trench III/South, 140-170 cm, below the stampedfloor, the lower part of an ALP bowl with incised arrowhead motif. 8-9: Trench III/North, 70-100cm, fragments of ALP vessels with incised motifs.

– 225

Fig. 147 - Békésszentandrás-Furugy, site 1/28. 1: Trench III/N, 110-140 cm, red painted spiral motif on a Szakálhát sherd. 2: Trench III/N, 40-80 cm,dark painted ALP rim fragment of a pedestalled bowl. 3: Trench III/S, 140-170 cm, -110 cm below trampled floor surface, dark paint on the outer rimsurface of a pedestalled bowl. 4: Trench III/S, 160-190 cm, ALP pit, incised sherd of the ALP with brown paint. 5: Trench III/N, 110-140 cm, ALP blackpaint between ALP incised lines. 6: Trench III/N, 100-120 cm, ALP sherd with red crusted paint. 7: Trench III/S, 140-160 cm, dark polished/red paintedalternating fields between incised lines of ALP-character. 8: Trench III/S, 140-160 cm, rim fragment of an ALP pedestalled bowl with dark red paintedstripe on the inner surface. 9: Trench III/S, 160-180 cm, ALP sherd with alternate dark-light fields between the incised lines. 10: Trench III/N, 110-140cm, characteristic Szakálhát fragment with alternate dark polished/crusted red-painted running spirals. 11: Trench III/S, 160-190 cm, red crust paintedALP sherd. 12: Trench III/S, 140-170 cm, -110 cm below the trampled floor, ALP pedestal fragment with dark (black) paint between the incised lines.13: Trench II/31-60 cm, fragment decorated with a distorted ALP motif. 14: Trench III/North, 70-100 cm, lower part of an ALP bowl with incised ALPtype lines on the outer surface, and alternate fields of dark polished/red crusted painted fields (outer surface), with polished inner surface. 15: TrenchII/30-60 cm, fragment of an ALP pedestalled bowl with an incised arrowhead motif.

226 –

Fig. 148 - Békésszentandrás-Furugy, site 1/28. Painted and incised fragments of transitional type. 1: Trench III/S, 160-190 cm, ALP pit, necked bowl withSzakálhát type incised lines, alternate black-polished and red crust painted bands. 2: Trench III/N, 70-100 cm, rim fragment of the upper part of an ALPpedestalled bowl. Inside (left) painted stripes, outside (right) ALP lines: the fields in between are polished or red crust painted. 3: Trench III/S, 120-140 cm,-110 cm below the trampled floor, ALP incised sherd, dark paint. 4: Trench III/SW, 120-140 cm, -110 cm below trampled floor, Szakálhát incised line,polished/red crusted painted. 5: Trench III/S, 190 cm below trampled floor, Szakálhát-type polished/painted decoration. 6: Trench III/20-50 cm,Szakálhát-type polished-painted decoration. 7: Fragments of a rounded Szakálhát-bowl from Trench III/80-150 cm, with alternate dark polished/redcrusted painted bands on the outer surface accompanied by incised lines of Szakálhát character. 8: Trench III/N, 40-80 cm, see no. 2. 9: Trench II/60-90 cm,black polished spiral on a Szakálhát fragment.

– 227

Fig. 149 - Békésszentandrás-Furugy, site 1/28. 1: Trench III/house + Trench III/6a, handled necked bottle of Szakálhát type with a polished/paintedrunning spiral pattern on the belly. 2: Trench II/30-60 cm fragment of an unpainted Classic Szakálhát large container.

228 –

Fig. 150 - Békésszentandrás-Furugy, site 1/28. 1-8: Szakálhát sherds with incised geometric and spiral pattern from Trench II/60-90 cm (1, 5, 6-8), TrenchIII/SW, 120-140 cm, -110 cm below the trampled floor (2), Trench III/N, 140-171 cm (3), and Trench III/S, 140-160 cm (4).

– 229

139-157). The whole Copper Age of the Hungarian Plain would last 2403 or even 2960 years and the 1000-1500hitherto excavated Tiszapolgár and Bodrogkeresztúr graves would fall within a time-span of 1403 years.

The end of the Baden Culture (LCA) marks the beginning of the EBA, which, in the Carpathian Basin, did notstart before 2000 or 2200-2100 Cal BC200. The time-span of the Tiszapolgár and Bodrogkeresztúr Cultures might nothave lasted 1000-1403 years, and the Baden Culture 1500 years (from 3757 to 2200). In my view, the radiocarbonmethod201 leads to nonsense results if it is not associated with a detailed study of the archaeological finds.

Since I do not believe in the radiocarbon chronology, I have decided to adopt only relative chronologicalcomparisons for the Neolithic and Copper Ages of Hungary. The hope that radiocarbon dating will provide areliable basis independent from the traditional relative dating methods is difficult to sustain for the Neolithic andthe Copper Ages of the Carpathian Basin. Especially when calibrated the radiocarbon dates for the Copper Ageare too high and long. I cannot accept the position of some scholars who utilise the radiocarbon dates for the thirdmillennium and earlier, when available, and dates linked with the ‘short’ or traditional chronology for the secondmillennium (DICKINSON, 1994: 17-21). My position is to disregard the radiocarbon dates of the third millenniumand earlier. The recently discovered Baden Culture half life-sized clay mask from Balatonõszöd is unique in theprehistory of Europe. Its excavator dates the entire life span of the Baden Culture between 3500 and 3000 Cal BC(HORVÁTH, 2002; 2002a)202. Between 3000 Cal BC and the beginning of the local EBA, around 2200 or 2000Cal BC, lies a whole millennium that becomes a black hole in the Carpathian Basin according to the radiocarbonchronology, apart from sporadic Kostolac Culture sites between the final Baden and the EBA, which can bereferred to this period. These 800-1000 years can be called the Kostolac period of the Carpathian Basin.

In my opinion, the chronology of the Körös Culture and the internal sequence of the sites of this period are tobe based on stratigraphic evidence (if any) and pottery sequences, combining microstratigraphical evidence andstylistic analysis. This classification would lead to the definition of three major phases between the beginningand the end of the Körös Culture with subphases within each site (see the internal chronology of the sites and thecomparative chronological chart). On this basis the white painted pottery is to be attributed to the earliest phaseand marks the beginning of the Neolithic in the Great Hungarian Plain (TASIÆ, 2003: 191).

The Körös Culture represents the Early Neolithic of the Carpathian Basin with its contemporaneous aspectsin Transylvania (Criº), Serbia and Transdanubia (Starèevo). It spread to south Transdanubia (KALICZ, 1990;1993; KALICZ et al., 1998; KALICZ and KALICZ-SCHREIBER, 2002), the southern half of the Alföld, Transylvaniaand the foothills of the north-eastern Carpathians (Carpathian Ukraine)203. Its cultural traits, development andchronology correspond with the Anatolian Chalcolithic (Hacilar IX-II) and Protosesklo in Thessaly. Its origin isunknown. In the territory where it is distributed (the Great Hungarian Plain and south Transdanubia) no LateMesolithic site has been so far discovered. What is certain is that its material and spiritual culture spread intactfrom the southernmost Alföld (i.e. the Vojvodina) and the northern Balkans (MAKKAY, 1996).

The spread of agriculture and other Neolithic innovations is always to be partly correlated with demic diffusion,which always proceeds hand in hand with the dispersal and arrival of cultural traits and habits. The opposite does notoccur, because we have an abundant evidence for the transmission of new ideas without population movements:diffusion of ideas and inventions. Regarding the transmission of new technologies (pottery production, use of sickles,house building, textile manufacture especially weaving [MAKKAY, 2001], rod head and other figurines, stamp-seals,bone industry, etc.)204 its spread can be very rapid. This means that there is no significant chronological differencebetween the neolithisation of the northern Balkans and the early phase of the Körös Culture (BIAGI et al., 2005).The case of the clay stamps is representative from this point of view (MAKKAY, 1984; 2005).

The Neolithic clay stamp-seals of SE Europe, mainly recovered from settlement features and very rarelyfrom graves, represent a unique data-set (MAKKAY, 1984). Opposite to some other items, for instance the clayfigurines, they are absent in other cultural aspects while they are abundant in their neighbouring contemporarycultures. The best evidence is the Linear Pottery Culture (LBK). Although several hundred LBK settlements areknown over an area of more than one million square kilometres, between the Paris Basin and west-central

200. For more details concerning the high dating of the European Bronze Age and its archaeological background see MAKKAY (1997a; 1997b). 201. For the exclusive use of this dating method see WHITTLE et al. (2002). 202. Similarly, a recent exhibition catalogue dates the whole Hungarian Copper Age between 4400 and 2700 Cal BC and the beginning of the Baden Culturearound 3500 Cal BC (ENDRÕDI, 2004: 7-9). This contrasts between the supposed length of the cultures and the sporadic occurrence of their burials.203. As for instance Zápszony/Zastavne-Kishegy in Carpathian Ukraine, a few km northwest of Beregovo (POTUSHNIAK, 1985; 2004). The site lies some 60km northwest of Méhtelek on the right bank of the Tisza River. It is the northernmost Körös Culture site. Its environmental and geographical-agroeconomicalconditions are very different from those of the other Körös sites in the Hungarian Plain or Criº sites in Central Transylvania and the Partium. Its material culture remains, by contrast, are typologically very similar to the Körös types from both Méhtelek and the Körös Valley. 204. There are 18-20 characteristic Körös Culture items (vessel shapes, decorations, other artefacts, as for instance clay stamp-seals), which find closeparallels in the Aegean and Anatolia. See MAKKAY (1974; 2004a: 35 and 36).

230 –

Ukraine (BOGUCKI, 2003: fig. 13.3.), no stamp-seals has ever been recovered from any of them. Neverthelessrelationships can be drawn between the material culture assemblages of the early LBK of Transdanubia and theGreat Hungarian Plain and those of the southernmost Körös Culture (MAKKAY, 2004a: 35 and 36). On the otherhand the Körös assemblages are very rich in clay stamp-seals in comparison with their southern contemporaries,i.e. the Starèevo and partly Karanovo Cultures.

This fact had already been defined in 1984: “the general distribution of these EN seals is very instructive.They were found in those EN cultures of South-East Europe which formed an integral part of the Neolithiccultures on the northwestern periphery of the Near East and Anatolia, and developed a related, but secondaryand peripheric (Greece) and marginal (the Körös culture) Neolithic civilization. In more remote (CentralEuropean) Early and Middle Neolithic cultures alien to this area of South-East Europe, not one single stampseal has yet been found with the exception of two isolated stray finds. It would appear that evidence for the use ofclay stamp seals in the Linear Pottery cultures will not be found at all” (MAKKAY, 1984: 81 and 82). A recentreview has not changed the geographical distribution of these items: the more extensively studied LBK area tothe north and west did not yield any stamp-seals (MAKKAY, 2005: 7-10).

The distribution of the Early and Middle Neolithic stamp-seals of the Carpathian Basin leads to thefollowing conclusion: 1) the strong relationships with, and the partial origin of the Körös material cultureassemblage from the south (the Balkans, East Aegean and West Asian) and 2) the stop of the Körös Cultureelements at the northern distribution border of the Alföld and Transdanubia, while other Neolithic innovations(agriculture, pottery, new bone205 and stone tools) continued to spread farther north after a short stagnation period.Some authors believe that it was a (very) long period (some one thousand years: KERTÉSZ and SÜMEGI, 2001: 237and 238), although the relative chronology of some Körös Valley sites shows a short interval between the arrival ofthe Körös innovations at its northernmost distribution line and their further spread amongst the northern natives and consequently the LBK inhabitants (MAKKAY, 2004a: 36 and 37). The material culture finds show that thestagnation period was short: the above-mentioned bone tools of the Early ALP were imitations of their Körösprototypes, since I cannot imagine their independent reinvention after centuries. This noticeable contrast betweenthe northernmost spread of specific Körös artefacts and the continuous spread of the Neolithic inventions is of greatimportance from the point of view of the social and cultural relationships along the borderline.

Nevertheless, there are some differences between the implements of the Great Hungarian Plain and those ofthe Northern Balkans. For instance, the Hungarian assemblages did not yield any labret. Donja Branjevina in theVojvodina, yielded 25 labrets, 23 of which are from clay and 2 from stone (KARMANSKI, 2005: Pl. XXII). Theirabsence in Hungary is inexplicable (MAKKAY, 2004a: 36, note 31)206. The painted pottery is also very rare in thenorth. The few white-on-buff painted sherds from Szarvas 23 and Endrõd 119 (MAKKAY, 1996: Pls. 9-11;MAKKAY and STARNINI, forthcoming 2: figs. 22-24) belong to the earliest Körös-Starèevo Culture. The majority of the pottery shapes and other artefacts, however, are identical in both the Körös and Starèevo Cultures, artificiallyseparated, as some prehistorians believe, by the Trianon borderline of June 1920 (MAKKAY 1969; 1974).

Furthermore, the Hungarian Körös Valley sites of this culture have yielded 40 sherds with textile imprints,either impressed into the fresh clay or negative impressions on the vessel calcium carbonate crust (MAKKAY,2001c). These are the earliest Neolithic textile imprints of Europe, which find no parallels either in the Balkans or Greece (MAKKAY, 2000). It is known since decades that the Körös Culture was not only the first to bring anddistribute Neolithic inventions/innovations and tool types in the Carpathian Basin, but that it also transmittedthem to the native Late Mesolithic bands that lived north of the Körös boundary, both in the northern part of thePlain and Transdanubia. The influences of the Körös Culture led to the emergence of the Middle Neolithiccultures of the Carpathian Basin: the Alföld Linear Pottery (ALP)207 and the Early Transdanubian or MiddleEuropean Linear Pottery (TLP or MELP) in Transdanubia. The ALP remained isolated during its entiredevelopment in the same territory, without spreading to the north, northeast or east, and it never reached theCarpathians. It spread significantly towards the south, gradually occupying the former territories of the LateKörös Culture between the Körös and Maros Rivers during and after the Protovinèa phase (HORVÁTH, 1994).

In contrast, the earliest TLP began to spread rapidly in the Danube Valley to the west, and to the edge of theCarpathians to the northwest. This culture is responsible for the neolithisation of the entire region between the

205. The bone tools are very important in this case since spatulae of Late Körös-Protovinèa types (fig. 140: 5-7) became common in the Early ALPassemblages but did not occur in more recent periods of the same culture (KALICZ and KOÓS 2000a: 67-68 and fig. 11: 4-15). 206. On the other hand, stone sceptres and small beads are represented in Körös assemblages. Stone sceptres were found at Endrõd 3/39 and 3/119(STARNINI and SZAKMÁNY, 1998: fig. 8: 4 and 18: 2).207. The Szatmár pottery can be considered the early or earliest two phases of the ALP.

– 231

Rhine and the Vistula Rivers and the Pripet Marshes in NW Ukraine. However, it did not spread to the northGerman-Polish plain (GRYGIEL, 2004). In my opinion the Late Mesolithic groups of these regions were neolithisedunder the influence of the TLP or MELP. In this case we deal with a complicated phenomenon of gradual (demic?)diffusion distributing agriculture and new technologies to the Danube Valley, the west, northwest and north.

A better understanding of these distribution processes and transformations largely depends on a detailedknowledge of the cultural geography of the Carpathian Basin, which is also of great importance for the incomeand spread of the Körös Culture.

17.2. THE GEOGRAPHICAL SETTING

The Carpathian Basin is the largest region of Europe, which is closed to the outside world by the mountainchain. This territory is very diversified because of its dimensions and internal dividing factors (river valleys,mountain chains among which are the Bakony Mts. in Transdanubia and the Central Transylvanian Mts.), whichgive shape to different regional variants: Transdanubia (a part of the Roman Pannonia provincia), the northernmountains and hills (partly in present Slovakia, and also the Mátra, Bükk and Tokaj Mts.), Transylvania and thelargest, central area of the whole basin, the Great Hungarian Plain that covers more than 100,000 squarekilometres. It is very important to point out that the Great Plain is connected with the Carpathian Range only in its northeast region, i.e. Carpathian Ukraine.

It is well known that the Carpathian Basin is one of the unsafe regions of Eurasia from the point of view of itspopulation geography. It has always been the scope of migrations, invasions and military campaigns, and veryfrequently unfriendly encounters of different peoples such as Iranians, Huns, Avars, Tartars Mongols, Kumanen, Ottomans and finally the Red Army around the middle of the XX Century and again in 1956. Most or all of theseinfluencing and hindering factors derived from invasions from the east. Except for the Ottoman occupationaround the mid XVI Century, the influences from the south were often positive for the cultural development ofthe area. The arrival of the EN Körös Culture can be considered the first of these influences.

South of the Eurasian mountain belt, the Hungarian Plain was undoubtedly one of the best regions for human settlement. Unfortunately the absence of a sufficient rainfall in some regions (especially several parts of theGreat Plain, as for instance north of the Triple Körös Valley) makes dry farming a hard work of uncertain yield,while irrigation agriculture can be practised only in a few areas. Similarly the northernmost expansion of theearliest food-producing populations, techniques and plants originating in the Near East and the Mediterranean,was partly hindered by cooler temperatures: grape and pistacia, and especially fig and olive could not beintroduced, and more resistant plants were selected instead, among which are wheat and barley. As a result,although monoculture agronomy did not evolve, the wide scale of domesticated plants (the eight founder crops)was not present here in the Neolithic.

Another important factor is that the Carpathian basin lies far from the sea, and as a result, people movements, trade and connections depended on land and river routes. An advantageous position was given by the Danubeand the geomorphologic role that the Carpathian Basin played both in prehistoric and in historic times, very good natural gateways, among which are (MAKKAY, 2000a): a. The Danube and the Axios-Vardar-Morava Valley from the south leading to the Alföld of Hungary along the

Tisza Valley and further west to the very fertile plains of SE Transdanubia across the Danube and DravaRivers. This geographic factor determined the emergence and final distribution of the Körös Culture (both inthe Plain and Southern Transdanubia) with its very strong southern connections (Bulgaria, Mainland Greece,Thrace and, in some cases, the early cultures of Anatolia).

b. The east and south Carpathian routes. Passes and deep valleys favour rapid access across the mountain belt towards the inner part of Transylvania or the NE part of the Great Plain in its northeastern edge (MAKKAY, 2000a: note 1).

c. Finally the Dévény Gate near Vienna (Porta Hungariae) into which the Danube flows from the west. Itguaranteed the rapid distribution of the neolithisation with the arrival of the Early TLP north of the Alps as faras the Rhine Valley and further to the west in the Epilinear.The seemingly closed Carpathian Basin has ‘green corridors’ which encouraged and favoured connections

and trade: the Tisza Valley, and also the eastern periphery of the Alföld north of the Maros, called the Partium.The factors, which determined the further destiny of the Hungarian Plain in the millennia after the deglaciationperiod, are discussed in MAKKAY (2000a: 25-27).

J. CHAPMAN (2003: 94 and 95), who compared the Early Neolithic environments of Hungary with those of theAegean, found strong similarities and also important differences between several aspects of the two regions: the

232 –

Early Neolithic inhabitants preferred water-retentive soils with high ground water in Greece lying on levees, andwell-drained soils on ‘islands’ of low ground water in Hungary. Most probably, the first farmers of both theseterritories preferred the rich loose soils with sufficient water capacity, especially in the drier parts of Greece.

These observations can be applied to the Körös Culture sites of the territory as already pointed out byMAKKAY (2000a: 27 and 28).

17.3. THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE KÖRÖS CULTURE

The distribution of the Körös Culture in the Carpathian Basin (i.e. the Plain, the Tisza Valley, Transdanubiaand Transylvania) does not perfectly suit the macro-areas of the Basin itself. Its northernmost, wavy SW-NE linecrosses the entire Basin (MAKKAY, 1982b: figs. 1 and 2; 2000a: 28). In Transdanubia it is distributed within thesoutheast half of the region and never spread north of Lake Balaton (KALICZ, 1990: Taf. 3, 2208). In the TiszaValley it stopped a few km north of Szolnok near the small village Zagyvarékas, while the climatic andgeographic conditions, together with the nature of the soils, continue to the north-northeast up to the piedmontof the Mátra and Bükk Mountains in Co. Heves and Borsod. Here the Körös Culture, the general distribution of which was largely conditioned by soil types and water holding capacity, was not affected by theseenvironments, which continued uninterruptedly northwards along the Tisza Valley before reaching thenorthernmore, palaeoeconomically slightly different regions209.

The same did not happen in the easternmost Méhtelek area of the Plain, where the environment significantlydiffers from that of the mid Tisza Valley. Regarding the Neolithic farming, the greatest difference between theMéhtelek area and the Körös distribution in the Körös and Tisza River Valleys lies in the quality of the soils:low-lying, frequently inundated small basins and old flooded areas and river beds in the Méhtelek area retain poorquality, acid, clayey soils which, according to the present-day farmers, are difficult to cultivate (MAKKAY, 2003a:26 and 27)210. Due to the acidity, bones (with the only exception of a sickle haft: MAKKAY, 2003a: fig. at p. 26) areabsent at Méhtelek, and the painted potsherds are rare (one or two pieces were found altogether [MAKKAY, 1996:37, note 13])211. In the southern and central parts of the Plain, the Körös Culture farmers did not settle on these soils.The opposite suggests that this distribution factor did not work in the Méhtelek territory. In contrast it reached thenorthernmost distribution boundary in the Carpathian Basin here. Furthermore it includes a few northernmore sitesin the neighbouring Carpathian-Ukraine, among which is Zápszony (POTUSHNIAK, 2004). It is possible to suggestthat the Körös settlement patterns of the Méhtelek Carpathian-Ukrainian region developed independently from theusual topographical, hydrological and pedological factors. The occurrence of Körös sites is sporadic in theMéhtelek area. Only another site is known in the whole eastern half of Co. Szabolcs-Szatmár212.

As already hypothesised by MAKKAY (2000a: 28) this NE penetration along the Tisza Valley wasprobably due to the interest in the stone resources of the Tokaj-Prešov Mountains, especially obsidian(CHAPMAN, 1986; STARNINI, 1993).

Regarding this point, I will re-examine the question in the light of C. PERLES (2001: 18 and 19) statement,according to which there is a contrast between the quality of the soils and the availability of the stone resources:the light alluvial soils that extend over the entire basins were the best for cereal cultivation. However, they did not provide any raw material necessary for the manufacture of sickle blades and millstones for agricultural activities.The farmers of these areas exploited raw materials from high quality sources often located far from thesettlements. Thus I consider that the first settlers of Méhtelek were advancing members of an ‘industrial’ andtrade outpost fulfilling the needs and interest of a larger population group. The people of the Méhtelek grouptried to reach these sources and, in spite of the wide and partly marshy valley of the Tisza River, they reached thepiedmont of the Tokaj Mountains on the right bank of the Tisza213.

208. According to his map, the ALP site Bezdéd lies in the Körös distribution territory. See below and also KALICZ and VIRÁG (2001) and KALICZ et al.(1998: distribution map). 209. For the suggestions of L. DOMBORÓCZKI (2001; 2003; 2004: 304) based on his recent excavations at Tiszafüred-Domaháza puszta, see MAKKAY (2004a: 38and 39). To summarise, characteristic Körös pottery was collected together with incised ALP material in a small refuse pit a few km north of the Körös distributionline. ALP incised sherds were found beneath the layer containig Körös potsherds. This is usual for the Szatmár (early ALP) pottery assemblages. For hisidentification of the Körös pottery, Domboróczki relied on I. KUTZIÁN’s (1944-1947) monograph which does not report these Late Körös types.210. According to the etymology, Méhtelek originally sounded Mély telek i.e. “low lying allotment parcel” (MAKKAY, 2003a: 6).211. Bóna apparently mixed the rare Körös painted wares with the rich assemblages of black painted MN Szamos vessels (MAKKAY, 2003b). 212. The disturbed remains of a Méhtelek feature was recorded by N. Kalicz and J. Makkay at Garbolz, close to Méhtelek, during the excavations(unpublished finds). The assemblages published as Early Neolithic by KOREK (1977) from the Tisza-Szamos area belong to the Middle Neolithic PaintedSzamos Pottery, contemporaneous with the recently excavated finds from Vállaj (MAKKAY, 2003b). Both BÓNA (1986) and KOREK (1966-67) believedthat the painted pottery of the Körös Culture and the Middle Neolithic Szamos one are very similar. 213. The only Early Neolithic site on the left bank and the nearest to the Tokaj sources is the disputed and never excavated Bezdéd. Its pottery, however,probably belongs to the (second?) phase of the Szatmár (early ALP) period without Körös types (MAKKAY, 1996: 37 and 38 and note 13).

– 233

Zápszony, on the right bank of the Tisza, is perhaps another advanced Körös site to gain access to stoneresources. The Körös Culture distribution shows that it did not spread as far as the great river bend of the Upper Tisza Valley. Consequently, the surface finds from Bezdéd-Servápa do not represent the Szatmár I orMéhtelek Körös group in old terminology, but Szatmár II, i.e. the earliest ALP214. In my opinion the spread ofthe Méhtelek group further north in the river valley south of the Tisza was hindered by local Late Mesolithicbands, which occupied the area of the stone resources and were interested in trading stones to thesouthernmore groups with the Méhtelek Körös industry.

Furthermore, I am still convinced that the northernmost expansion of the Körös Culture in the MiddleTisza Valley (i.e. north of Szolnok) was not stopped only by geographic or agroeconomic factors (SÜMEGI andKERTÉSZ, 2001), but by various groups who still led a Mesolithic way-of-life. The recent fieldwork andexcavations a few km northwest of the maximum distribution line of the Körös Culture in the Jászság haveshown that when the first Körös farmers arrived around the turn of the sixth and fifth millennia Cal BC,residual Mesolithic groups perhaps practised hunting and fishing in the Jászság itself (KERTÉSZ, 1996: 26;2003: 493 and 494; MAKKAY 1996: 41), northwest of the Szolnok-Zagyvarékas area, i.e. west of the Middlecourse of the Tisza River on its right bank215. These currently eroded Pleistocene pebbled surfaces, badlydrained and dry soils were totally different from the light and well drained soils preferred by the Neolithicfarmers in the Great Plain. Therefore the geographic conditions in the southern Jászság (first of all soilcharacteristics and the Late Mesolithic groups) might have hampered the Körös Culture distribution farthernorth. In the Tisza Valley, its northernmost spread was possibly stopped only by Late Mesolithic groups, sincethe soil conditions and other palaeoeconomic factors were identical on both the northern and southern sides ofthe Körös distribution line. C. PERLES (2001: 18 and 19) conclusion on Greece may be applied to the Alföld: for these first farmers, the most attractive features were the flat, alluvial basins with their light soils.

Considering both these factors, despite the present scarce archaeological evidence (KERTÉSZ and SÜMEGI

2001: 233), I suspect that the role of the native Late Mesolithic inhabitants was more essential here, incomparison with that of the Méhtelek area, since there the Körös Culture was distributed also on not verysuitable and fertile soils, very probably because of the absence of a consistent native population216.

The Neolithisation process did not stop at the temporary or final boundary of the Körös Culture, or only for ashort interval. During the whole process the spread of agriculture from the SE to NW to and across the Europeancontinent, arrows or waves crossed a number of agroeconomic and other barriers although it never stopped itsspread. Agroeconomic barriers and other physical obstacles (the Mediterranean Sea, rivers, mountains, marshesetc.) were crossed and agriculture continued to spread (MAKKAY, 2003: 37). As CHAPMAN (2003: 92) pointed out“After all, the distances between the Levantine coast and Greece are much greater than between Thessaly and theAlföld Plain [a mere distance of 500 km the Vardar-Morava Valleys], yet Near Eastern PPNB communities areroutinely compared with those of Early Neolithic Greece, …”. It was the material and also non-material culture ofthe newcomers, which did stop at the borders of large geographic areas and resulted in basic differences between,for instance, the earliest pottery assemblages of the Anatolian Chalcolithic, the Early Neolithic ceramics ofBulgaria, and the northernmost Starèevo and Körös pottery repertoire. Innovations always spread further.Otherwise the material culture of the neolithised regions between Cappadocia or Iraqi Kurdistan and Szolnokwould be similar or identical although they were not! Only one example: compared with its southern forerunnersand parallels, and also its northern and northwestern successors and neighbours (i.e. both the ALP and TLP), theKörös pottery occupied an interesting transitional position. As already pointed out by J. MAKKAY (2000a: 33),the Anatolian and South Balkan Early Neolithic might be defined as the ‘Early Painted World’ because of itstraditional pottery decoration technique, whereas accordingly, the Early Neolithic of Central Europe represents

the ‘Linear World’. In contrast, the Körös Culture decorative tradition might be called the ‘Plastic World’. On the other hand the suitable middle Tisza Valley north of Szolnok, the inhospitable Pleistocene

landscapes of the southern Jászság and the acidic soils around Méhtelek could stop the incoming groups if

214. From its discovery on October 2nd, 1962, I have attributed the small assemblage from this site to a very early phase of the ALP. The figurine, and a fewdozen sherds, were found during the digging of a water pipe ditch. See my short paper “The oldest female statuette from Co. Szabolcs: Neolithic finds fromTiszabezdéd” on the local daily Kelet-Magyarország, 19: 226, October 7th, 1962. The field collections of the late András CZETÕ (1996), a local teacher, inthe whole area of the village did not change this situation (unpublished finds in the Jósa András Múzeum, Nyíregyháza). The question of Szatmárterminology was developed by P. Raczky (MAKKAY, 1996: 38 and 39, note 13). 215. In more recent years R. KERTÉSZ (pers. comm. 2004) discovered more Late Mesolithic settlements in the Jászság area. Recent conclusions by P.SÜMEGI (2004; 2004a) are not considered a reliable approach to these questions and are disregarded.216. In spite of much effort, the presence of further Early Neolithic sites could not be demonstrated over the whole area of Co. Szabolcs-Szatmár inHungary. Another question is the occurrence of these sites in the Transylvanian part of the former Szatmár county, as for example Homorodul de Sus:BÁDER (1968) published only a few clay figurines.

234 –

indigenous native populations, where present. The peopling of an uninhabited region, as the Körös Valleyprobably was at the dawn of the Neolithic, was most probably due to the suitability of its soils and otherconditions related with agricultural purposes.

In order to apply the diffusionist model (AMMERMAN, 2003) versus the demic diffusion one (ZILHÃO, 2003)a few preconditions are necessary. They are: 1) the presence of a settled, indigenous Mesolithic population readyto accept farming, 2) balanced Late Mesolithic and the Early Neolithic population densities in a given region, and 3) “continuous” sequences of both the above-mentioned periods within the study area.

The terms of the demic diffusion model are more complicated, because of the arrival of 1) a new, sometimesanthropologically different population, and 2) new habits, assemblages (for instance pottery and stoneassemblages) and ideas (sacrificial and burial customs).

We have to point out which of these conditions did exist (or have been recorded) in the Great HungarianPlain and, in particular, the Körös-Tisza region.

We cannot be sure that there was any indigenous Mesolithic population in the Körös territory of the GreatHungarian Plain. Nevertheless no (Late) Mesolithic site has so far been recorded from this area. However, theabsence of finds does not necessarily imply that the territory was uninhabited when the first Körös Culturefarmers arrived. The Late Mesolithic sites might be sealed under the thick Holocene sedimentary layers and onlya few eroded surfaces are suitable for their discovery as for instance Jászság. Nevertheless during the ten yearsKörös Valley survey, we did not discover any Mesolithic tool, or layer, at the base of often 5-6 m thick sandpitand loess deposits. A few colleagues and critics can speculate that the southern innovators found here “a larger,if, ironically (!), currently almost invisible [Mesolithic] group in the Alföld Plain” (CHAPMAN, 2003: 102), or,according to C. PERLES (2001: 3 and 4) “the quasi-absence of data on the [Greek] Mesolithic, in particular in theregions that will be most densely settled during the Early Neolithic, is a crucial element in the debate. It canalways be claimed … that future fieldwork will eventually reveal a rich Mesolithic … However, I shall argue thatthe scarcity of Mesolithic sites must be taken at face value, that is, as a reflection of a sparse population”. Thusan invisible, elusive, non- or quasi-existing Mesolithic in the Great Hungarian Plain does not seem to haveplayed any role in the local Neolithisation process. Here, groups already familiar with farming, coming from thesouthernmost regions of the Danube Valley and the Balkans, implemented the agricultural know-how.

The absence of Late Mesolithic traces of occupation, might be explained as follows (MAKKAY, 2001a): 1)the appearance of the Körös Culture can be attributed to a large-scale demic diffusion (in this case there was noLate Mesolithic indigenous population). The absence of (Late) Mesolithic groups cannot be demonstrated due toinsufficient archaeological research, and/or 2) an indigenous Mesolithic population, which adopted farming,lived in the territories north of the Körös distribution line (for example between the Serbian Danube and theMaros, or between the Maros and Körös Rivers). In this case, there was no large-scale demic diffusion but only asimple cultural diffusion with a minimal demic diffusion.

It is difficult to conceive the idea of a rapid advance of the Neolithic innovations (‘package’) in the southernhalf of the Carpathian Basin without demic diffusion. In any case, the validity of point 1 cannot be stated,although intensive research might change this view in the future. The second condition (points 2 and 3) do notmatch, since dozens of excavated Körös Culture sites did not show any trace of cultural continuity from theMesolithic onwards, and the 100 or even 200 skeletons from the Körös Culture graves so far excavated contrastwith the absence of Mesolithic burials.

This would imply that due to the almost absence of Late Mesolithic peopling (almost complete only becauseLate Mesolithic hunters of the Jászság undoubtedly visited parts of the future Körös Culture territories during thegood fishing and hunting seasons), the Neolithisation on the Körös territory is to be attributed to the arrival of a newpopulation. The absence of Mesolithic traces might derive from geographic factors, which is strange because of thepresence of the Mesolithic sites of the Jászság region. It is more reasonable to admit that at present we knownalmost nothing of the Late Mesolithic of the central and southern regions of the Great Hungarian Plain.

This demic diffusion model does not necessarily imply that the newcomers arrived from a great distance.While the presence of one white-on-red/brown painted fragment from Endrõd 3/119 (MAKKAY, 1996: Pl. 9, 5-7and 11, 5; MAKKAY and STARNINI, forthcoming 2: fig. 22, 11) shows technological relationships with verydistant territories, other Early Körös potsherds with white-on-red painted dots point to the southern fringes of theCarpathian Basin and the northernmost Balkans, especially Donja Branjevina in southwestern Vojvodina(KARMANSKI, 2005: 47 and 48). These decorated vessels are so far unknown from the Körös Valley sitesalthough this does not mean that they were imported from a distance of hundreds of kilometres. This is also truefor other material culture items (vessels, face decorations of small clay stamps, small clay figurines, etc.; relieves

– 235

on large containers representing goat, red deer and human females however, rarely find comparison in the south). The number of these parallels, 20 all together (MAKKAY, 1974: 21-28; 1984; 2004a: 35 and 36), represents thebeginning of the Neolithic in the Carpathian Basin. It is contemporaneous with the Anatolian Early Chalcolithic(Hacilar IX-VI) and the Protosesklo Culture of Greece, around the end of the 6th millennium Cal BC217, althoughthe traditional chronology has a considerably lower date around the turn of the 5th and 4th millennia Cal BC.

During the last decade, an alternative model has been proposed for the spread of the first farming communitiesinto the Carpathian Basin and the western and northernmore territories of Central Europe. This model proposes “three frontiers which farming communities would have needed to cross before the establishment of their settlements inCentral and Eastern Europe” (CHAPMAN, 2003: 91). The first is the Central European-Balkan agro-ecologicalbarrier (CEB AEB), which would be responsible for the northern limit reached by the Balkan influences, andconsequently marks the northern boundary of the Körös Culture (KERTÉSZ and SÜMEGI, 2001: 235-239).

The neolithisation of the Carpathian Basin might have taken place in a way different from the CEB AEBtheory218. For instance J. CHAPMAN (2003: 91 and 92) believes that its “serious weakness is the extension of thealleged boundary to the North East Alföld, beyond the distribution of Balkan ecological influences, simply totake account of the distribution of the Méhtelek settlement[s] of the Körös group. While this alleged barrier inthe middle of the Alföld Plain may have had some meaning in the Upper Pleistocene, there were no obviousbarriers to the movement of Holocene animal species in this zone …”.

In my opinion it is difficult to formulate theories and models and discuss processes without any knowledgeof the archaeological procedures (MAKKAY, 2004a: 36, note 33). Instead of the CEB AEB theory I propose thepopulation barrier or Jászság border theory (MAKKAY, 2001: 14 and 15; 2001a: 72-78; 2003c: 47-53).

The most recent researches (BÁNFFY, 2004) have produced little or no contribution to a better understandingof the Körös Culture problems. The work of the above-mentioned author contains several incorrect referencesand its conclusions are highly disputable. Most of the material illustrated in this volume is of little or no help asfor instance the problem related to the Protovinèa pottery decorated with polished-incised lines (MAKKAY, 2004: 20-22; 2005). This contrasts with the results from my excavations that have greatly improved our knowledge forthe Late Körös-Protovinèa pottery. For instance, BÁNFFY (2004: 244) wrote “the footed vessels of the Körösculture usually rested on three feet”, while our Körös assemblages produced quite different results: hundreds of(fragments of) footed vessels were found in the Körös Valley, with 4 to 13 feet, while not one single fragment of a 3-feet vessel has so far been discovered (MAKKAY and STARNINI, forthcoming 2).

17.4. THE JÁSZSÁG BORDERLINE AND THE MODIFIED VERSION OF THE “DIMINI WANDERUNG”

THEORY

The Jászság border is located at Jászság219, northwest of Szolnok. It was part of a much longer borderlandbetween the northern periphery (the marginal zone) of the Anatolian-Balkan complex (i.e. the Körös Culture) andthe southeastern area of the Middle European-Danubian Linear Pottery complex. During the period of thearrival/emergence of the Körös Culture, these Danubian peoples still lived in Late Mesolithic conditions and weresubdivided into many technological complexes or cultures with characteristic chipped stone assemblages(KOZ£OWSKI, 2001). During the evolved Early Körös220 and under formative Körös influences, the entire CentralEuropean-Danubian territory was unified by new technological innovations (the Neolithisation), and consequentlythe Central European Linear Pottery formed first in Transdanubia, the so-called Early Neolithic Bicske group(MAKKAY, 1978; 1996c: 264 and 265). In the north Hungarian Plain and north of the Körös borderline, undersimilar conditions (Körös innovative influences), another aspect of the Linear Pottery Culture (ALP) developed.

These two main Linear Pottery complexes (the Central European and the ALP) differ from the KörösCulture. They can be distinguished also from each other on the basis of their vessel shapes, decorations and alsofigurines. An empty zone, some 30-40 km wide, lies between the easternmost distribution of the Western(Central European) Linear Pottery, east of the Danube, in the Gödöllõ foothills northeast of Budapest, and the

ALP in the Tápió and Zagyva Rivers Valleys (MAKKAY, 1996: 40-42; 2001: 24; 2001a: 63).

217. Paste, painting and the finely burnished surface of the above-mentioned Endrõd 119 vessel show very close parallels with the Hacilar IX-VI pottery(ÖZDOÐAN, pers. comm. 2003).218. For my arguments and opposed view see MAKKAY (2001a).219. Jászság, ’the home of the Jász people’, an area settled be the Jászs, a group of Middle Iranian Jasy (Russian ), related to the Sarmatians and Alans,who reached to this part of the Carpathian Basin during the Migration Period, in the I-III Centuries AD. 220. Early, Classic and not Late Körös phase, since the internal chronologies of the excavated sites show the presence of evolved Szatmár (early ALP)associated with Late Körös-Protovinèa pottery (figs. 141 and 142).

236 –

For a better understanding of these processes it is necessary to refer again to the Balkans (MAKKAY, 1996).The intensive surveys carried out in Thessaly have shown that the Neolithic spread into Greece and the southernBalkans took place mainly in areas unsettled by indigenous Mesolithic hunter-gatherers, while farther west andnorth these communities were present (VAN ANDEL and RUNNELS, 1995: 494). A possible interpretation is thatthe Neolithic farmers preferred soils and geomorphologic conditions different from those with light sandy andsilty loams and a good water supply. The Mesolithic hunter-gatherers preferred Pleistocene terraces and fansoils. This is of key importance for the understanding of the diffusionist versus indigenist model based on thepresence and role of a local population. The relationships between the incoming southern farmers (i.e. Körös)and the natives might have been similar to those of Greece, although the soil condition of south Transdanubia atthe beginning of the Neolithisation is almost unknown.

Thus the Jászság borderline lies between the newly arrived Körös and ALP groups, the latter of which isidentifiable with the aboriginal population, who most probably spoke an early Indo-European dialect. Since theCentral European Linear Pottery farmers can be regarded as the ancestor of the northwestern Indo-Europeandialect group (MAKKAY, 1987b; 1992c: 207-213), it seems reasonable to conclude that the Körös-Starèevofarmers, which bordered it to the south and southeast, spoke an ancestor of the Balkan Indo-European dialects,which did not include the (already differentiated?) one spoken by the earliest ancestors of the Proto-Greeks.

This model might give an answer to the above-mentioned question, namely whether or not there were closerelationships between the predecessors of the Proto-Greeks and the Proto-Germans. The answer is positive sincethe very early ancestors of the Proto-Greeks lived in the Tisza Valley just to the southeast of the Jászságborderline represented by cultural groups of ALP origin.

The Körös Culture apparently withdrew from its northernmost distribution, north of the Körös Valley.Features with Szatmár (earliest ALP) materials associated with Late Körös and Protovinèa assemblages madetheir appearance in the Triple Körös Valley, especially at Endrõd 3/6 and Szarvas 8/23 (figs. 22, 7; 25, 3; 26, 1-6;27, 2 and 6; 30 [Szarvas 23] and figs. 42, 4-7; 45, 1-8; 46, 1, 3, 6 and 7; 48, 1-8). Shortly afterwards, the nextphase is represented by the appearance of the fully developed ALP in the south at sites like Gyoma 107 (earlysubphase) and Szarvas 102 (later subphase). These sites indicate that the ALP shifted southwards (MAKKAY,

1982a: figs. 2 and 3; 1987: 17, chronological map). The explanation ranges from invasion to peaceful diffusion,although I am inclined to explain it as an invasion, rather than a demic diffusion due to the presence of massgraves at the Körös Valley Late Körös Culture sites221.

The ALP groups did not expand further north, northeast or northwest. They occupied the former Körösterritory in the Great Hungarian Plain, but not Transylvania. The related, although independent TransdanubianLinear Pottery groups are responsible of their further expansion to the northwest.

One of the most important differences between the TLP and ALP is that the former rapidly expanded westwardsalong the Danube Valley to the Morava Plain soon after its emergence. It distributed to its west, north and northeast,reaching its early phase widest distribution within a short period (less than a generation?) in the Rhine Valley (Eitzum, near Hannover), Saxony (Eilsleben), Bohemia (Bilany) and the Pripet Marshes. It is indicated by the similaritiesbetween the distinctive vessel forms and their decorative patterns from Bicske in Hungary (MAKKAY, 1978a),which is the richest settlement of this early phase, and the assemblages from other, distant western sites(MAKKAY, 1978a; LENNEIS, 2004). In my opinion this Linear Pottery that spread swiftly on the loess areasbetween the Vistula and the Rhine as far as the boundary of the north German -Polish Plain can be identified withthe early ancestors of the north-western Indo-European dialect group of A. Meillet (MAKKAY, 1987b; 2001a).

The westward, southward and eastward spread of both the Linear Pottery Cultures continued after theMiddle Neolithic. In the west, the Epilinear groups reached the Seine Valley, and some others migrated as far asNormandy. In Transdanubia some groups moved south, crossed the Drava and settled in Croatia during the‘Notenkopf’ phase (HORVÁTH and SIMON, 2003: 25-74), while, in the Great Hungarian Plain, subsequent ALPwaves first occupied the region between the Körös and Maros Rivers. Later the Szakálhát group crossed theMaros Valley, as far as the old bed of the Maros (today called Aranka). In the following Late Neolithic phase, theTisza Culture expanded to the Timiº territory, and during the Early Copper Age the Tiszapolgár Culture, whichderived from the preceding one, is documented from sites along the left Danube bank. The BodrogkeresztúrCulture, its Middle Copper Age successor, crossed the Danube and occupied the Neolithic site of Vinèa, asdemonstrated by the cemetery on the top of the tell, then moved some 100 km southwards in the Drina Valley asfar as Višesava (MAKKAY, 1996a: 781 and notes 24-25).

221. See the description of these graves in the chapters regarding Endrõd 3/6, Szarvas 8/23 and in Appendix III.

– 237

If these migrations are projected on a map, the most likely candidates for the Proto-Greek homeland are theTisza Valley, in the Great Hungarian Plain, and the central regions of the northern Balkans. As I have suggested,the Bodrogkeresztúr and related Sãlcuþa groups, which migrated southwards (MAKKAY, 1996a: 782, map 1) canbe identified with the distribution of the early Proto-Greeks from the north to their historical appearance in thesouth Balkans. The Bodrogkeresztúr grave finds in Višesava (Serbia), more than 100 km from the nearestBodrogkeresztúr site at Vinèa, demonstrate that the Bodrogkeresztúr groups moved southwards from the Danube Valley in the middle third of the 3rd millennium Cal BC or towards the end of the same millennium. Thisdemonstrates that the Bodrogkeresztúr, together with the Late Sãlcuþa Culture, constitutes the early Proto-Greekspeaking population (MAKKAY, 2001a; 2003c: 47-53).

The archaeologists who are familiar with this problem might object that the derivation of the BodrogkeresztúrCulture from the Linear Pottery is unacceptable, and that the Proto-Greek does not belong to the northwesterndialect continuum. However, the Bodrogkeresztúr Culture not only derives from the Linear Pottery, but it is also agenetic successor of the ALP (through the Szakálhát-Tisza-Tiszapolgár cultural line distributed in the eastern andsouthern areas of the Great Hungarian Plain) representing a distinct Linear Pottery complex. Furthermore, theBodrogkeresztúr Culture did not evolve north of the Jászság borderline (MAKKAY, 2001b) (i.e. in the territory ofthe northwestern dialect group) but in the Tisza Valley, although it later distributed in this western region.

Thus the ancestors of the Proto-Greeks were transitional between what later became the Northwestern andBalkan dialects. The very early Northwestern dialect speakers were the Western Linear Pottery farmersdescending from the TLP and ’Notenkopf’, while the Balkan ones most likely from the Körös-Starèevo-Karanovo groups (MAKKAY, 2001a: 73 and 74)222.

This model corresponds with the nature of the German-Hellenic isoglosses since they hardly contain anycultural or technical term relating to the society and its institutions, the environment or the implements utilised.They are mostly words indicating body movements, feelings or actions, and a few body parts. In other words, it is a basic vocabulary, presumably inherited from the common Indo-European stock, which remained independentin both languages (POLOMÉ, 1986; GENDRE, 1997: 208-213). The explanation is that the speakers of these twoproto-dialects, who inhabited adjacent territories, migrated to different directions (the Proto-German movednorth and the Proto-Greek south) and their technical terms, institutions and environment of later habitatsdiffered, as did the tools they employed since they came into contact, the first with the non Indo-EuropeanMesolithic bands of the north, the second with the Early Semitic and other more civilised Mediterranean peoples.

It is undoubted that the Pit Grave (Kurgan) Culture intrusion took place towards the end of theBodrogkeresztúr period. There are a few traces of contact between these two aspects, although it seems that thesouthern group of the Bodrogkeresztúr population retreated in the face of the Pit Grave intrusion and partlymigrated southwards. Bodrogkeresztúr is the prehistoric culture of the Carpathian Basin distributed farthest tothe south in the Balkans, down to the great curve of the Drina, some 100 km south of the Sava River, as shown bythe finds and graves from this region (MAKKAY, 1996b: 781). This southern expansion can be linked with thesouthward migration of the Proto-Greeks. Its initial phase is marked by the similarities between the goldpendants of the Bodrogkeresztúr Culture and those from Greece. The southwards migrating Bodrogkeresztúrgroups had some knowledge of what later became the Greek lands.

This view is an updating (or ‘resurrection’) of the Dimini-Wanderung theory proposed by Matz andSchachermeyr between the two wars (TULOK and MAKKAY, 1999; MAKKAY, 1999c: 81-132) also discussed byG. DEVOTO (1962: 99, 101, 108, 11; MAKKAY, 1999c). The most important difference is that, instead of theBükk and Tisza Cultures, both descendants from the ALP, their Copper Age Bodrogkeresztúr successorsrepresent the early Proto-Greek tribes migrating south from the southern fringes of the Carpathian Basin. Itshould be borne in mind that the archaeological cultures of the original Dimini-Wanderung theory, the Bükk andthe Tisza, never migrated as far south as the Bodrogkeresztúr one. At the same time this latter can be regarded asthe genetic successor of the two above-mentioned cultures. This migration penetrated as far as the Balkans. Thesouthwards following migration of the Greeks is an argument for linguists (MAKKAY, 2003c: 8-11, 42 and 43).

I do not think that much more can be said about the origins of the Proto-Greeks. Apart from a fewarchaeological types, there are some other indications that might support my theory (MAKKAY, 2003c: 47-54).The later development of the Alpine-Danubian area of the Western Linear Pottery is quite a different story,which can be correlated with the southern movement of the ALP groups during the 3rd millennium Cal BC, i.e.the Indo-Europeisation of Italy (MAKKAY, 2001).

222. This model partly fits into the Balkan-Indoeuropean view of C. RENFREW (1999).

238 –

Appendix I

MA£GORZATA KACZANOWSKA AND JANUSZ K. KOZ£OWSKI

THE LITHIC ASSEMBLAGES OF SZARVAS 8/23, PITS 3/3 1988 AND 4/2 1988

1. PIT 3/3

Pit 3/3 yielded 20 obsidian and 1 limnoquartzite artefacts. This group is represented by 18 retouched tools, 1flake and 1 unretouched blade.

1.1. RECONSTRUCTION OF THE REDUCTION SEQUENCE

The assemblage from Pit 3/3 contained only two debitage pieces. They are: 1) A flake detached when the core platform was shaped, by removing the tip of an obsidian nodule. Prior to the

detachment of this flake two cortical flakes, perpendicular to each other, had been detached. Thus, the flake inquestion is the third flake in turn that shaped the core platform and, apart from the scars from the two earlierflakes, it has some cortex on the dorsal side (fig. 31, 1),

2) A small fragment of the proximal part of an obsidian blade. The butt is prepared; the bulb type with distinctbulbar scars suggests the use of a soft hammer (fig. 31, 2).The other debitage products from Pit 3/3 were transformed mainly by transversal or lateral-transversal

retouch. The proportions of these tools and the multiseriate character of the retouch show that thetransformations considerably reduced the size of the original blanks. Among the modified debitage products, 10are blades and 8 are flakes.

In the group of flakes, which are all made from obsidian, the majority comes from rejuvenation or from thefinal phase of core reduction. The specimens from the rejuvenation of core flaking surfaces show a centripetaldorsal pattern (3 items) and perpendicular scars (3 specimens). The latter flakes may come from a change oforientation (90o cores). One specimen may come from the final phase of reduction of a blade core that wastransformed into a flake core.

The remaining flakes include:1) A specimen from the extension of the flaking surface by detaching a partially cortical (lateral cortex)

flake (fig. 31, 7),2) A flake from an indeterminate phase of reduction, with bi-directional dorsal pattern perpendicular to the

direction of the flake (fig. 32, 6),3) A blade-like flake with unidirectional dorsal pattern (fig. 32, 3).

Only five specimens have preserved butts, representing all butt types: cortical, linear, plain (2) and facetted.Regardless of the butt type a hard hammer was used to detach flakes, which is evidenced by the occurrence ofpercussion cones (in one case it is a double cone) and bulbar scars or even bulbar ridges.

None of the blades (7 specimens) and bladelets (3 specimens) is complete, and for this reason their lengthcannot be determined. The blade width oscillates from 1.5 to 2.0 cm, whereas that of the bladelets is from 0.7 to1.5 cm. The blade thickness is from 0.6 to 1.1 cm, that of the bladelets about 0.2 cm. Only three blades (and noneof the bladelets) have preserved proximal parts; the percussion angles vary from 90o to 120o. The platforms areextensive; the type of bulbs with bulbar scars suggests the use of a punch.

The dorsal pattern of the blades is characterized by 3 to 5 scars from previously detached blades, indicatingfairly flat flaking surfaces, which is in agreement with the straight profile of these blades.

The type of core reduction technique suggests that the users of feature 3/3 had a limited access to lithic rawmaterials, both obsidian and limnoquartzite.

Obsidian was probably brought to the site as cortical concretions, which were then strongly reduced in orderto produce blades, bladelets as well as flakes. The presence of the following products of this process are recorded:1) Flake from platform preparation by detaching the tip of an obsidian nodule (fig. 31, 1),2) Flake from flaking face extension onto the non-cortical surfaces. We can thus assume that in the early stage of

core reduction flaking surfaces and sides of cores were without preparation (fig. 31, 7),

– 239

3) Flakes from flaking surface rejuvenation during the advanced phase of core reduction, and flakes from achange of orientation, also from the advanced phase of reduction (fig. 31, 9 and 10),

4) Flakes from the final phase or reduction when blade cores were transformed into flake cores (fig. 31, 11).All the debitage products, not only regular blades and bladelets, were used and strongly retouched.

1.2. RETOUCHED TOOLS MORPHOLOGY

The largest group of retouched tools is represented by end-scrapers (9 specimens), more than a half of alltools. They include:1) 2 blade end-scrapers whose proximal parts are broken off. One has a slightly convex front, shaped by uniseriate

retouch and unretouched sides (fig. 31, 3), while the other has a weakly convex, slightly oblique front, which isbroken by striking the dorsal side; it has a fine, weakly denticulated retouch on the lateral side (fig. 31, 4),

2) 5 end-scrapers are short and include 2 blade and 3 flake specimens. A short blade end-scraper (fig. 31, 5) has aweakly convex front shaped by semi-steep, biseriate retouch, restricted along two sides by a partial, lateralretouch (biseriate right, very fine left). A short, flake end-scraper (on a partially cortical flake) with a slightlyasymmetrical front shaped by uniseriate, fairly irregular retouch; the scars vary in size. The base of the flake is broken and shows a partially preserved proximal-lateral notch (fig. 31, 7). The remaining short end-scrapershave a lateral retouch. A blade specimen has a weakly convex front shaped by fairly large scars at an angle of45o to the ventral side of the end-scraper; on the lateral side, it has discontinuous slightly denticulatedretouch, the other lateral side has discontinuous, very fine retouch (fig. 31, 6). Two flake end-scrapers withunilateral retouch have more conspicuously convex fronts shaped by lamellar retouch or extensive flakescars at an angle of 45o-60o. The lateral sides of these two specimens are divergent which gives them afan-shape. The flaking axis is at an angle of 30o-40o to the tool axis (fig. 31, 8 and 9).

3) One flake end-scraper, possibly a double specimen, which is transversally broken. The distal front isnosed-denticulated, while the proximal retouch, only partially preserved, could have shaped an undulatingfront (fig. 31, 10).

4) A double, flake end-scraper was bilaterally retouched. The distal front is straight and oblique shaped by steepretouch, which was formed by large scars, whereas the proximal front is convex, shaped by steep, biseriateretouch. The left lateral side is convex, densely retouched; the right lateral side has a biseriate, not very steepretouch: this specimen resembles a double side-scraper (fig. 31, 11). Undoubtedly, this is the effect ofrejuvenation - both of the lateral as well as the transversal retouch, which resulted in a considerable reductionof the whole circumference of the specimen.There are two truncations, one of which is made on a distal part of a partially cortical blade with a slightly

oblique, distal retouch. This specimen was fractured by a blow on its ventral side (fig. 32, 1). The secondspecimen has a blunted back, slightly concave, contiguous to the bilateral notch on the right lateral side, andconcave, lateral retouch (also two-sided) on the left side (fig. 32, 2).

The only specimen with a typical lateral retouch is a blade-like flake with a fairly steep retouch on the distal partof the right side (fig. 32, 3). A blade from grey limnoquartzite shows use-wear along the whole length of the right side.The high gloss on this side of the specimen occurs in a belt 0.3 cm broad, which indicates that it was mounted parallelto the axis of the sickle haft. The proximal part is broken off, also the very tip of the blade where a small, bifaciallyretouched notch was situated. The breaking of the proximal part is later than the gloss of the lateral edge (fig. 32, 4).

Two flake specimens have a lateral notched retouch: the proximal part of a flake has a notched unilateralretouch on one side and a straight semi-steep retouch on the second side (fig. 32, 6); a flake has a retouched notchand a contiguous Clactonian notch on the left side, and a large Clactonian notch on the right one (fig. 32, 5).

The assemblage includes, besides three geometric microliths, an intact, slightly asymmetrical trapeze withsteep, bilateral retouch (fig. 32, 7) and two fragments of similar trapezes. One of these has an oblique blunted backand a fracture in the proximal edge of a bladelet (this was possibly a thin and fairly long trapeze: fig. 32, 8), whereasthe second fragment has a slightly convex blunted back in the proximal part, while the distal part is missing (fig. 32, 9).

2. PIT 4/2

Pit 4/2 yielded a small series of obsidian artefacts (71). They were made from at least four types ofobsidian differing for colour intensity (from grey to black) and degree of transparency. The structure of theassemblage is shown in table 1 below:

240 –

Number of specimens %

Cores 2 2.8

Flakes 30 42.2

Blades 27 38.0

Tools 12 16.9

Total 71 99.9Table 1 - Pit 4/2: structure of the chipped stone assemblage.

The structure of the assemblage, with an almost identical percentage of blades and flakes, a relatively highpercentage of tools and a low number of cores, is typical for the sites located at a considerable distance from theraw materials deposits. The Carpathian obsidian sources utilised at Szarvas are some 200 km from the site, as thecrow flies. Thus, we can assume that the inhabitants of the settlements did not obtain the raw materials directly,by undertaking trips to the outcrops, but rather by mean of exchanges from other groups. Nevertheless we cannotexclude that the structure of the assemblage from Feature 4/2 reflects a specific system of raw materialprocurement within only one group. In such a case, the raw material nodules brought to the site underwent apreliminary treatment in specialised workshops, in a well-defined area of a settlement e.g. at its outskirts.Workshops like this might have been located also close to the raw material sources. Their function might have beenmerely the initial preparation of the nodules i.e. decortication and possibly the shaping of the platforms. Sinceobsidian is highly breakable and fissile, which made difficult the transport of blanks over larger distances; theworkshops located close to the sources never dealt with blade production. The above hypothesis assumes that in agiven group there were specialists who extracted and carried out the preliminary treatment of the obsidian lumps.

2.1. CORES

Pit 4/2 yielded two small, residual, double-platform cores with separate flaking surfaces. The preparation ofone core is restricted to only one platform, while the second, linear platform is situated in the distal part of theoriginal core. The second core has a broad, flat flaking face, the platforms are opposed and carefully prepared; onthe back is a scar from a large blade-like flake detached perpendicularly to the core axis. The core reduction fromthe second platform is only initial (fig. 33, 1). The two cores are most probably an example of an attempt tochange the orientation of the cores three times, in order to make a fuller use of the obsidian nodule rather than anexample of the classical opposed platform reduction. In the final phase of the reduction, the second core showsthat the technique of obtaining a blank had changed: on the original broad flaking surface, a pressure techniquewas used to detach blades, whereas the second flaking surface indicates the employment of a hammer. That thecores were well exhausted is also evidenced by the size of the flaking surfaces (up to 2-2.5 cm long). The lengthof scars on the cores is shorter than the length of the intact blades, which must have been longer than 3.0 cm, inthe assemblage under examination. This further confirms the extremely economic exploitation of these cores,which had been reduced until blades and flakes could no longer be detached.

2.2. FLAKES

The assemblage from Pit 4/2 contained 30 flakes and fragments and 7 tools made from flakes. The flakes aresmall: the most frequent length interval is from 1.0 to 3.0 cm and the width from 1.0 to 2.0 cm. The dorsal patternof the flakes is provided below (table 2):

Flake dorsal surface Number

Corticated 3

50% corticated 1

Partially corticated; unidirectional scars 1

Unidirectional scars from blades and blade-like flakes 7

Scars from core preparation 1

Rejuvenation (centripetal or convergent scars) 9

Change-of-orientation or rejuvenation (perpendicular or opposed scars) 6

Indeterminate (flake fragments) 2

Total 30Table 2 - Dorsal pattern of the flakes from Pit 4/2.

– 241

The table shows that, besides core reduction also the preparation and rejuvenation of obsidian concretionswere carried out within the site, although to a small extent. In addition to the cores undergoing the full cycle atreduction on the site, small obsidian concretions had been at least partially worked off site. The preparation wasusually restricted to the shaping of the platforms. The majority of the flakes do not come from preparation butfrom core reduction. The presence of flakes with blade scars on their dorsal face confirms the transformation ofblade cores into the final phase of the reduction into flake cores. As blanks were being detached, the core anglewas corrected by rejuvenating the platform. The operation that enabled a better use of raw material was a changeof orientation of the cores into opposite or perpendicular to the original core axis. The above-mentionedprocedures, and also the occurrence of flakes from the final stage of blade cores reduction, confirm the economicuse of the raw materials or, perhaps, some difficulties in obtaining raw material.

The frequency of particular types of flake butts is as follows (table 3):

Butt type Number

Cortical butt 2

Plain butt 9

Prepared butt 3

Linear butt 6

Without butt 10

Total 30

Table 3 - Flake butts from Pit 4/2.

Just as at other Neolithic sites, specimens with a plain butt represent the most frequent type in the flakegroup. The next position belongs to cortical and rejuvenated specimens with linear butts. Although conclusionsbased on such a small assemblage may be risky, we have to assume that these flakes come from more advancedstages of core reduction and undoubtedly not from the decortication of raw material nodules. A soft hammer wasused to detach these flakes. It is to be added that the flakes, notably the more slender ones with scars from bladeson their dorsal face i.e. deriving from final stages of core reduction, were often transformed into tools.

2.3. BLADES

The assemblage yielded 27 blades fragments included (fig. 33, 2-8, and fig. 34, 1-3) and 4 tools made onblades. The percentages of the complete specimens and fragments are listed below (table 4):

Characteristics Number %

Complete specimens 4 14.8

Distal fragments 5 18.5

Proximal fragments 11 40.7

Mesial fragments 6 22.2

Proximal+mesial fragments 1 3.7

Total 27 99.9

Table 4 - Main characteristics of the blade fragments from Pit 4/2.

The majority of the blades have been preserved as fragments, just as at other Neolithic assemblages (e.g.Zbudza, Gomolava: KACZANOWSKA and KOZ£OWSKI, 1986; 1990). Among the fragments, proximal partspredominate, which is also fairly typical of the Neolithic assemblages. This was caused by an attempt to removethe thickest part of a blade. The distal part was detached when it was thin and hinged, in order to obtain a straightblank profile. When the objective of an operation was to obtain a blank with parallel edges, a straight profile anduniform thickness, then both the distal and proximal parts had to be broken off. However, because theassemblage from Pit 4/2 is small, it was difficult to define why the blades were broken off.

The analysis of the dorsal pattern suggests that the blades come from advanced stages of core reduction (table 5):

242 –

Dorsal pattern Number %

Unidirectional scars 22 81.5

Unidirectional scars+cortical right side 3 11.1

Unidirectional scars+cortical left side 1 3.7

Opposite scars 1 3.7

Total 27 100.0

Table 5 - Main characteristics of the dorsal patterns of the blades from Pit 4/2.

A small number of blades comes from the flaking surface extension. The presence of cortex on lateral sidesconfirms that core preparation was restricted mainly to the platform.

The four intact blades are between 3.6 and 4.3 cm long. The two specimens that are more slender and longerwere detached by pressure technique; the other two are rather irregular and come from the flaking surfaceextension. The width of the blades is from 0.5 to 1.7 cm. The variability of the width of the blades obtained bypressure technique is smaller: from 1.1 to 1.2 cm. The specimens made by both pressure and hammeringtechnique exhibit attempts at retaining parallel lateral edges (15 specimens). The dorsal sides usually have threescars and a trapezoidal cross-section (15 specimens). The specimens from the flaking surface extension (lateralcortex) usually show a triangular cross-section. The fact that the majority of the blades are trapezoidal incross-section demonstrates that the cores with fairly broad flaking surfaces were used, and they became flatbecause consecutive series of blades were detached. The rejuvenation was aimed at re-obtaining convexityflaking surfaces.

The frequency of blade butts is provided below (table 6):

Butt type Number

Prepared butt 11

Plain butt 4

Dihedral butt 1

Specimens without a butt 11

Table 6 - Butt types of the blades from Pit 4/2.

The prepared butts clearly dominate over the other butt types. Probably, each phase of core reduction waspreceded by the detachment of a series of fine flakes on the platform edge. In the final phase of reduction, whenthe blade-like flakes were being detached, this operation was discontinued.

The collection of blades under examination contained five specimens with a characteristic bulb with a ridgearound it, which indicates the employment of the pressure technique. This technique was probably also utilisedfor six other specimens preserved as fragments. This is evidenced by their regular sides and interscar ridges, thestandardized width and thickness of the specimens. However, we cannot exclude the possibility that the “punch”technique was used (PELEGRIN, 1991).

2.4. TOOLS

12 retouched tools were recorded. All the blank types were modified by retouch. The tools were made onslender blades (2 specimens), on a large and fairly robust blade (this type is not represented among theanalysed blanks: 1 specimen), on a fine and thin blade (1 specimen), on blade-like flakes with blade scars onthe dorsal side (4 specimens), on a cortical flake (1 specimen), and on broad and flat flakes (3 specimens). Thefollowing major tool groups are represented:

2.4.1. End-scrapers

- One end-scraper with a weakly convex low front at the distal edge of a broad flake. The retouch is regular,semi-steep. Opposite to the front is a break from a deep notch (fig. 34, 4);

- One end-scraper with a broad, semi-steep, fan-shaped front shaped by a regular, uniseriate retouch at the distaledge of a blade-like flake (fig. 34, 5),

– 243

2.4.2. Truncations

- One weakly oblique, slightly convex truncation shaped by semi-steep retouch at the distal edge of a broadblade or, better, a blade-like flake (fig. 34, 6),

- One oblique, slightly concave truncation at the proximal edge of a slender blade (fig. 34, 7),- One oblique truncation with fine retouch, on the break at the distal edge (fig. 34, 10).

2.4.3. Perforators

- One specimen on a blade-like flake with flat, inverse retouch shaping a thick, weakly distinguished point. Thetip of the point is blunt, shaped by a transversal, steep retouch (fig. 34, 8).

2.4.4. Retouched blades

- One slender blade with the tip broken off and fine, steep lateral notch (fig. 34, 9).

2.4.5. Retouched flakes

- One blade-like flake with the tip broken off and fine, steep lateral retouch (fig. 34, 11),- One robust flake with thick lateral retouch (fig. 34, 12),- One flake with distal retouch. The retouch is fine, ventral, extending onto a small section of the lateral edge

(fig. 34, 13),- One cortical flake with obverse retouch covering the distal part. The retouch is semi-steep and fairly thick.

3. THE ASSEMBLAGES FROM PITS 3/3 AND 4/2

A comparison of the two assemblages has shown that, while the technology and typology of the obsidianprocessing is similar, considerable differences exist concerning the quantitative composition of the variousmajor technological groups. The presence of 2 cores and 57 unretouched debitage products (altogether 83%) inPit 4/2, in comparison to the domination of retouched tools in Pit 3/3 (about 80%), points to either distinctfunctional differences between the two features or to taphonomic causes of these dissimilarities.

Since the dimensions and contents of Pit 3/3 are not indicative of any distinctive, domestic, activity area, theoccurrence of almost exclusively retouched tools which are, moreover, well worn and repaired, seems to suggestthat they were intentionally discarded in this particular place. Nevertheless Pit 3/3 does not have thecharacteristics of a dumping area either. Thus, two hypotheses are plausible:

1. That the tools were left there as a store of potential raw material or products which could, in thefuture, be used (in case of shortage or difficulties in obtaining raw materials),

2. As a specific discard associated with an offering or another manifestation of magic or cult rites.The assemblage from Pit 4/2 shows the approximate average structure of the chipped stone artefacts from the

settlement sites situated at a great distance from the raw material sources. All these finds were discarded in acharcoal lens within the filling of the pit, probably indicating one of the utilisation phases of the pit itself.

3.1. THE ASSEMBLAGES FROM PITS 3/3 AND 4/2 IN COMPARISON WITH THE ASSEMBLAGES OF THEKÖRÖS-STARÈEVO COMPLEX

A distinguishing feature of the Early Neolithic assemblages of the whole Balkan-Danubian zone,characterized by the presence of Painted and Barbotine pottery, is the small number of artefacts that are fairlyevenly distributed at sites in particular living units. This is clearly shown in the list presented below comparingthe assemblages of the Starèevo-Körös sites distributed between the Hungarian Plain and northern Serbia(BÁCSKAY and SIMÁN, 1987; STARNINI and SZAKMÁNY, 1998; BIRÓ, 2001).

244 –

SitesCores and unretouched

debitage productsRetouched tools

Lepenski Vir III (without core depots) 321 32

Golokút 27 20

Vörs 82 17

Gellénháza (Starèevo Culture features only) 79 9

Endrõd 39 (without flake depot of 101 pieces) house and pit 6 2

Endrõd 35 (one pit) 3 2

Endrõd 6 (one pit) 9 5

Endrõd 119 (23 features) 38 13

Hódmezõvásárhely-Bodzáspart 7 5

Hódmezõvásárhely-Kotacpart 8 6

Dévaványa 30 14

Szolnok-Szanda 17 4

Table 7 - Number of cores and unretouched debitage products and retouched tools from the Starèevo-Körös sites distributed between the Hungarian Plainand northern Serbia.

This situation derives from difficulties in lithic raw materials procurement (the sources were not easy toaccess) and the method of discard, which was the effect of a more developed curation of tools.

The raw materials that were most often exploited in the Starèevo Culture territory were: North Balkanflints and the so-called Banat flint in Serbia; in the north-western territories (also in the south ofTransdanubia), radiolarites from the region of the Balaton and the Mecsek Mountains, Tevel type flint andobsidian. As regards the Körös Culture, the most important raw materials are: Carpathian obsidian,limnoquartzite from north-western Hungary and white opals. Flints from the Pre-Balkan Platform occur insmaller quantities. The exploitation of predominantly exogenous raw materials undoubtedly resulted in theeconomic use of these raw materials and the frequent curation of tools.

Both unworked raw material nodules (e.g. obsidian) and cores with an advanced preparation were brought to the sites of the Körös-Starèevo complex. This can be noticed in cores hoards, among which are two cachesfound at Lepenski Vir III in the Starèevo Culture vessels (SREJOVIÆ, 1969). It is, therefore, likely that duringthe Early Neolithic, the north Balkan flints came from workshops located close to the sources that, so far, havenot been discovered. A similar suggestion could also apply to the Eastern Balkan sites with Painted Ware(GATSOV, 1993). This system of raw material supply seems to demonstrate that, during the Early Neolithic, the organization of extraction and distribution of the raw materials was, in this part of central and south-eastEurope, more advanced than during the Middle Neolithic.

What gives the method of lithic blanks production in the Starèevo-Körös complex a separate character is,first of all, the core reduction technique. In the Starèevo-Körös complex, instead of a complete reduction of acore in a single episode, we are dealing with a process of core reduction, which is spread over time and space. The various episodes were separated by rejuvenation of core preparation not only on platforms but also on sides andthe core back. Instead of this operation, a change of orientation might also occur. As a result, only the cores ina well-advanced phase of reduction, mainly residual cores, were discarded. For this reason, cores are very rarelyrecorded and usually in the final phase of reduction. The process of core reduction, in several episodes separatedby rejuvenation, has been confirmed by an extraordinary find at Endrõd 39 (KACZANOWSKA et al., 1981) where101 flakes originating from the rejuvenation of one core of North Balkan flint were found in a Körös vessel.

The techniques of core preparation or blade detachment, or in the final phase also flakes, were each different. While core preparation was carried out using a hard hammer, blank detachment was made using either a softhammer or even the pressure technique. The latter technique, however, occurs relatively rarely. It should beremembered that also J. Pelegrin noticed the occurrence of pressure technique in the earliest Neolithic of Greekmainland (at Franchthi: lecture, College de France, 2001).

To sum up: the raw material economy in the Starèevo-Körös complex is characterized by thrift andmaximum exploitation of cores, blanks and tools.

Some of these characteristic features can also be seen in the materials from the two features from Szarvas 23.They are: 1) the economic exploitation of cores, discarding strongly worn tools and 2) the repeated rejuvenation

– 245

of core preparation enabling maximum reduction. These are undoubtedly the features that link Szarvas 23 to theEarly Neolithic tradition in the sphere of chipped stone industry. Unfortunately, the small number of artefactsdiscarded at the site does not allow us to define whether the core reduction took place in several episodes in thesame way as at the sites of the Starèevo-Körös complex.

The analysis of the retouched tools from the Starèevo-Körös sites has shown that the dominant group weretools with lateral retouch, which is shown in the list below:

Anza I Anza II-IIILepenski

Vir IIIEndrõd

119

Hódmezõ-vásárhely-Bodzáspart

Hódmezõ-vásárhely-

KotacpartDévaványa Szolnok

End-scrapers 5 39 7 3 1 5 3 1

Truncations – – 3 1 – – 1 –

Perforators 2 8 1 3 – – – –

Retouchedblades 6 71 13 5 4 1 11 3

Notched/denticu-lated tools – – 3 – – – – –

Retouchedflakes 4 41 4 – – – 1 –

Others 1 17 – 1 – – 1 –

Total 18 176 31 13 5 6 17 4

Table 8 - Number of instruments from some of the most important Starèevo-Körös sites of the study region.

The group of blades with lateral retouch is followed by the end-scrapers; the retouched flakes and perforators occupy a further position. The truncations belong to rare finds at the sites of the Starèevo-Körös complex. TheEarly Neolithic assemblages with painted pottery from the Eastern Balkans exhibit the same tool structurecharacteristic features (GATSOV, 1993).

A totally different structure is recorded at Szarvas 23, where the dominant groups are end-scrapers andtruncations, while the proportion of blades with lateral retouch is small.

At the sites of the Starèevo-Körös complex, microliths, represented by trapezes, make their appearanceoccasionally. Although this is not the rule, it is recorded at only some sites (e.g. Cuina Turcului in Rumania[PÃUNESCU, 1987], and Biserna Obala in the Vojvodina). This suggests that the appearance of geometricmicroliths is the effect of a functional specialization (a greater role played by fishing and hunting) and not of thetechnological-morphological tradition.

We can suggest, generally, that the two assemblages from Szarvas 23 represent a technological tradition,which is close to the Starèevo-Körös complex, whereas the style of the retouched lithics is different from theaverage Starèevo-Körös stone assemblages.

If we look at the lithic tools from Szarvas 23 in terms of their function, we can say that they are linked moreclearly with the Early Neolithic traditions. This is confirmed by:1) The dominance of functions related to the working of hard materials and plants,2) Abundant evidence of hafting,3) The occurrence of use-wear not only on the retouched tools but also on numerous unretouched debitage products.

However, The above observations are based on the use-wear macroscopic analysis. The microscopic studyof these artefacts is still to be made.

3.2. THE ASSEMBLAGES FROM PITS 3/3 AND 4/2 IN COMPARISON WITH THE CHIPPED STONE

INDUSTRY OF THE VINÈA CULTURE

As we demonstrated in a lecture delivered at the Smederevska Palanka conference (KACZANOWSKA andKOZ£OWSKI, 1990), the stone industry of the Vinèa Culture shows a fairly large variability both in its diachronicand synchronic aspects. Because of this reason, when we compare the assemblages under discussion and theearly phase of the Vinèa Culture we have, first of all, to refer to the lower levels of the Vinèa site near Belgrade(RADOVANOVIÆ et al., 1984).

A general feature of the Vinèa chipped stone industries is a full cycle of processing and, consequently, largequantities of debitage and cores at the sites. This is also the effect of wasteful raw materials economy, which is

246 –

evidenced by the relatively weakly reduced cores. Such cores are recorded in workshops that occur at some sites(comp. Gomolava: KACZANOWSKA and KOZ£OWSKI, 1986), and also in the various household clusters wheretraces of a full cycle of processing occur most frequently.

The lowermost layer (8.4 to 8.9 m) at Vinèa yielded, from a fairly small area where Vasiæ collected materialsrather carelessly, 1,218 artefacts among which are (table 9):

Materials Flakes Blades Cores

Obsidian artefacts 167 669 7

Flint artefacts 156 200 19

Total 323 869 26

Table 9 - Number of flakes, blades and cores from the lowermost layer of Vinèa.

The cores exhibit a relatively small degree of preparation, especially in the older phase of the Vinèa Culture,which were used to produce small blades: their average length is 3.0 to 3.5 cm, and width from 1.3 to 1.4 cm.

In an extravagant raw material economy, one might expect that the Vinèa Culture would use primarily localraw materials. Nevertheless the range of the raw materials utilised by the population of this culture was verybroad and comprised raw materials from western Serbia, the Banat and the Vojvodina (flints and radiolarites) and raw materials from outside the Vinèa Culture territory (e.g. Carpathian obsidian).

The characteristic features of production systems and technology, supplemented by the hard hammertechnique commonly used in the full cycle of processing, are quite unlike the systems that occur in theStarèevo-Körös complex or from the assemblages from Szarvas 23 analysed in this chapter.

In the Vinèa Culture tool morphology, the small number of blade tools with lateral retouch is striking, with, atthe same time, the domination of tools with a transversal retouch, first of all end-scrapers and truncations. This ispresented in the table 10 below, which shows the retouched tools structure from the lowest levels of the Vinèa site:

Instruments level > 9 m level from 8.3 to 8.9 m

End-scrapers 17 61

Truncations 1 15

Blades with discontinuous, marginal retouch – 38

Perforators – 3

Retouched flakes 4 –

Table 10 - Number of instruments from the lowermost layer of Vinèa.

When we compare the blades with marginal retouch from Vinèa with similar blades from the Starèevo-Körös complex, we can see that the retouch, in the Vinèa Culture, is discontinuous and fine, often even slightlydenticulated in comparison with the more regular retouch in the Starèevo-Körös complex. The appearance ofinverse, semi-steep retouch is characteristic for the Vinèa Culture, while this retouch is not typical for the EarlyNeolithic Painted Pottery cultures in the Balkan-Danubian zone.

In the Vinèa Culture tool assemblages, the quantity of microliths and perforators is variable. During the early phase of this culture, the proportion of microliths was very high in some regions, especially in the eastern part ofthe Vojvodina and Banat (e.g. at the site of Potporanj: KACZANOWSKA and KOZ£OWSKI, 1983). The proportionof perforators, often microlithic ones, oscillated on the intra-site scale, which is confirmed at the site ofGomolava (KACZANOWSKA and KOZ£OWSKI, 1986).

The instability of the frequency of microliths, observable mainly on a regional scale, was also characteristicfor the Starèevo-Körös complex where it indicated functional determinants such as the specialization of somesites in a fishing-hunting economy (e.g. in the Iron Gate region and in the northern Vojvodina).

On the basis of the above comparisons, we can conclude that the structure and morphology of the retouchedtools of the assemblages from Szarvas 23 under consideration are much closer to the Vinèa Culture than to theEarly Neolithic cultures of the Starèevo-Körös complex.

However, it should be added that the use of tools at Szarvas, determined by mainly functional structure,resembles more closely the Starèevo-Körös complex because the Vinèa tools had predominantly functions

– 247

connected with the cutting of soft materials as demonstrated by the analyses by B. Voytek (RADOVANOVIÆ et al., 1984); traces of hafting are rare, a considerable part of retouched tools does not exhibit use-wear unlike thewell-worn and frequently repaired tools from the Starèevo-Körös complex.

4. CONCLUSIONS

The analysis reported above has shown that, in respect to processing techniques and systems of lithic rawmaterials procurement, as well as methods of blank production and the use of tools, the assemblages from Pits 3/3 and 4/2 from Szarvas 23 resemble the Early Neolithic industries of the Starèevo-Körös complex. On the otherhand, in respect to the chipped stone tools morphology, Szarvas 23 differs from the Early Neolithic industriesand shows similarities with the Vinèa Culture industry, notably its early phase.

While the technological features seem to be, first of all, the expression of cultural tradition, as they are passed on from one generation to another and require consolidation in the long practice of individual knappers, themorphological features, on the other hand, have a stylistic nature and can more easily be imitated or adopted as aelement of cultural diffusion. We may, tentatively, put forward the following hypothesis: the population thatinhabited Szarvas 23 derived from local groups of the Körös or the Starèevo Culture, but it remained under theinfluence of new stylistics associated with the Vinèa Culture diffusion that had reached the Szarvas region in theform of imitation stimulated by communication between groups rather than through direct ethnic migration.

Our conclusions are congruous with those formulated by J. MAKKAY (1990) on the ceramic assemblagefrom Szarvas 23. This author ascribes some features of this site to the Proto-Vinèa phase, and Pit 2 from Trench 4to “the beginning of the Proto-Vinèa phase” (MAKKAY, 1990: 120). It does not seem, however, that ourconclusions should be an argument in support of the thesis proposed by Makkay that “the emergence of the Vinèa pottery began simultaneously over the whole central and northern Starèevo-Körös territory”. To answer thequestion posed by Makkay about the genesis of the Vinèa impulse [“one can equally assume extraneousinnovations and the perfection of the Körös-Starèevo (technology) ...or both”] we are inclined to maintain thatboth these factors, local traditions and external impact, played a role especially in the Hungarian Plain and theVojvodina.

248 –

Appendix II

TIBOR PALUCH

THE KÖRÖS CULTURE GRAVES

1. PREFACE

The most recent papers on the Early Neolithic burials of Hungary were written by O. TROGMAYER (1968c;1969). Although several cemeteries of this period were later discovered, apart from a few minor reports(RACZKY, 1988: 21-22; KALICZ, 1990: 45), no other summary paper has ever been published since then. Thecase is different for the anthropological aspects. With the publication of the burials of Dévaványa-Barcéikishalom, an attempt was made to summarise the available evidence (ZOFFMANN, 1997). This situation isunique. Moving to Slavonia, a paper on this subject was written by MINICHREITER (1999), whilst extensivesummaries have been compiled on the graves of more recent periods (ORAVECZ, 2000; ZALAI-GAÁL, 2002).

A characteristic of the Early Neolithic of southeast Europe is the absence of cemeteries. The graves, whichare randomly distributed within the settlements, show only a few traces of funerary rituals (RACZKY, 1988: 21).The Starèevo Culture sites have so far yielded very few graves, which represent only a very small part of theEarly Neolithic population (PALUCH, 2004).

2. THE BURIALS

2.1. BURIAL CUSTOMS

Most of the graves were found during the excavation of refuse pits. The number of graves contained in onesingle burial pit is rather small. The relationships between burials, houses, and refuse pits have already beenemphasised (BANNER, 1932: 45; 1937: 41-43; KUTZIÁN, 1944: 93-97; TROGMAYER, 1968c: 115-134; 1969:13). The idea of burying inside pits has been accepted by the researchers since long, although from differentpoints of view (CSALOG, 1968: 22). According to the available information (LOSITS, 1983: 11; ORAVECZ, 1997:18; KALICZ et al., 2002: 17) the existence of burial pits is probable, although they are uncommon (ORAVECZ,1997: 18). Most of the skeletons are crouched, while very few others were buried in other positions(TROGMAYER, 1964: 67; 1968: 120; LOSITS, 1983: 11; KALICZ, 1990: 45; ORAVECZ, 1997: 18). In many cases,the burials can be assumed only on the basis of the presence of the bones (BANNER, 1932: 7; TROGMAYER,1968c: 116, 118, 120; MRT8, 1989: 385; MAKKAY, 1992: 133) (table 1).

2.2. BURIAL PITS

According to the available data (fig. 152; ECSEDY, 1972; LOSITS, 1983: 11; ORAVECZ, 1997: 18; KALICZ etal., 2002: 17), the existence of burial pits in the entire territory of the Körös Culture cannot be demonstrated.Nevertheless given that a small number of graves comes from well-documented excavations, we might suggestthat such pits were discovered also during researches carried out in the past.

2.3. POSITION

For many graves (36: 27.9% of the total), we do not have any data concerning the position of the skeletoninside the pit. Regarding other graves, the position of the skeleton crouched on its left prevails (37: 28.7% of thetotal), while it is much lower on the right (19: 14.7%). Given the low number of anthropological data, it isimpossible to verify the sex variability on the basis of the position. In some graves with crouched skeletons, theprone or supine positions are unique (BANNER, 1932: 20; TROGMAYER, 1964: 67; 1968: 120; KALICZ, 1990:45). A supine female skeleton from Dévaványa-Barcéi kishalom is exceptional (LOSITS, 1983: 11; ORAVECZ,1997: 18; ZOFFMANN, 1997: 27).

– 249

Fig. 151 - Starèevo Culture burial from Vörs: photograph, drawing, plan and section (after KALICZ et al., 2002).

250 –

Fig. 152 - Körös Culture grave from Dévaványa, Katonaföldek (after ECSEDY, 1972).

– 251

Site Number of graves

Shape of grave

pit

Rite Gravegoods

Age Gender Reference

orientation position other

1. Csorvás-Orosházi útfél

1 grave1 grave pit ? ? none 25-34 y. male/female?

GOLDMANN,1979;

ZOFFMANN,1986; 1997

2. Deszk, I. sz.olajkút

2 graves

Grave 1

Grave 2

?

?

SE-NW

S-N

crouched left

crouched right

lying back

lying face

vessel

none

?

?

male/female?

female

LIPTÁK, 1975;TROGMAYER,1967; 1968c;

1969;ZOFFMANN,

1997

3. Dévaványa-Barcéi kishalom

1 grave grave pit NNE-SSW stretched lying back none 40-44 y. female LOSITS, 1983; ORAVECZ,

1997;ZOFFMANN,

1997

4. Dévaványa,Katonaföldek

1 grave grave pit NW-SE crouched left none ? female ECSEDY, 1972

5. Endrõd,site 6,

Kápolnahalom

2 gravesGrave 1skelet. 1skelet. 2skelet. 3skelet. 4Grave 2

pit

pit

S-NN-SE-WN-SS-N

crouched left?

crouched leftcrouched left

crouched right

nonenonenonenonenone

?????

adultadultadultchildadult

MRT8, 1989

6. EndrõdÖregszõlõk

1 grave pit ? crouched none 6-7 y. child MRT8, 1989

7. Endrõd-Lyukas-halom

1 grave pit SE-NW crouched left vessel? ? child MRT8, 1989

8. Endrõd-Varnyai-puszta

3 gravesGrave 1Grave 2Grave 3

pitpitpit

???

???

ochre nonevessel

?

???

???

TROGMAYER,1968c; 1969

9. Endrõd, site 119

10 gravesGrave 1Grave 2Grave 3Grave 4Grave 5Grave 6Grave 7

Grave 8Grave 9

Grave 10

pitpitpitpitpitpitpit

pitpitpit

E-WW-EW-E

?NNW-SSE

NE-SW?

NE-SWW-E

?

??

ventral?

crouched rightcrouched left

?

crouched rightcrouched right

?

skull

burnt malebones

ochre

nonenonenone

?nonenone

?

nonenone

?

3-4 y.5-6 y.

???

9-10 y.?

???

childchildadultchild

femalechild

adult +child

malechildchild

MAKKAY,1987a; 1992

10. Furta-Csátó 4 gravesGrave 1Grave 2Grave 3Grave 4

????

NE-SW?

WSW-ENEWSW- ENE

??

crouched leftcrouched right

skullnonenonenonenone

?5-6 y.

??

adultchildchildadult

Unpublished

11. Gyoma-Póhalom

1 grave ? ? ? ? ? ? MRT8, 1989

12. Hódmezõ-vásárhely

Bodzáspart

9 gravesGrave 1Grave 2Grave 3Grave 4Grave 5Grave 6Grave 7Grave 8Grave 9

?????????

E-WS-N

SE-NW?

NE-SWNE-SW

NNE-SSWNNE-SSWSSE-NNW

crouchedcrouchedcrouched

?crouched leftcrouched left

crouched rightcrouched rightcrouched right

?

nonenonenone

?nonenonenonenonenone

?????????

?child

???????

BANNER,1939; 1954;

TROGMAYER,1968c; 1969

1. The graves are not numbered according to their original distribution. Only the Körös-Starèevo burials have been taken into consideration in this paper.

252 –

13. Hódmezõ-vásárhely,Gorzsa,

Vermeshalom

1 grave ? ? ? uncertainchronology

? ? child TROGMAYER,1968c; 1969

14. Hódmezõ-vásárhely,Kopáncs,

Kovács-tanya

4 gravesGrave 1Grave 2Grave 3Grave 4

pitpitpitpit

?NE-SW

?NE-SW

?crouched left

?

disturbed

disturbeddisturbed

nonenonevesselnone

????

??

child?

BANNER,1932;

TROGMAYER,1968c; 1969

15. Hódmezõ-vásárhely-

Kopáncs-Zsoldos-tanya

8 gravesGrave 1Grave 2Grave 3

Grave 4Grave 5Grave 6Grave 7

Grave 8

pitpitpit

pitpitpitpit

pit

E-W?

SE-NW

?SE-NWSE-NW

?

E-W

crouched right

crouched left

crouched leftcrouched left

crouched right

skull

disturbed

double childgrave

none?

Tridachnabracelet

nonenonenonenone

none

???

????

?

???

femalemalechildchild

female

BANNER,1932;

TROGMAYER,1968c; 1969

16. Hódmezõ-vásárhely-

Kotacpart-Vata-tanya

11 gravesGrave 1Grave 2Grave 3Grave 4Grave 5Grave 6Grave 7Grave 8

Graves 9-11

pitpitpitpitpitpitpitpit

?

E-W?

SE-NW?

E-WNNE-SSW

E-WWSW-ENE

NNE-SSW

crouched left?

crouched left?

crouched leftcrouched rightcrouched leftcrouched left

crouched

disturbed

disturbed

skulluncertain

chronologylying face,triple grave

none?

none?

nonenonenonenone

none

????????

?

???

childchild

???

male

BANNER,1935;

TROGMAYER,1968c; 1969;ZOFFMANN,

1997

17. Hódmezõ-vásárhely,Nagysziget

1 grave ? ? ? ? ? ? TROGMAYER,1968c ; 1969

18. Lánycsók 1 graveskelet. 1skelet. 2

pitNW-SE

E-W??

lying back?

nonenone

??

femalechild

KALICZ,1977; 1990;

1993

19. Maroslele-Pana

5 gravesGrave 1Grave 2Grave 3Grave 4Grave 5

pitpitpitpitpit

??

ENE-WSWENE-WSW

?

??

crouched leftcrouched left

?lying back

lying left, skull

??

nonenone

?

?????

??

femalemalemale

TROGMAYER,1964; 1968;

1969;ZOFFMANN,

1997

20. Mezõberény-Bodzáshalom

2 graves

Grave 1Grave 2

??

SE-NWNE-SW

crouched leftcrouched left

uncertainchronology

2 vesselsobsidian

blade

??

??

MRT10, 1998

21. Siklós-Csukma-dûlõ

1 grave ? ? ? ? ? ? ? NAGY, 2000

22. Szajol-Felsõföld

1 grave ? E-W crouched right buried inside house? traces

of burning

gravegoods

? female RACZKY,1977; 1982;

1988

23. Szakmár-Kisülés

8 gravesGrave 1

Graves 2-8pit?

W-E?

??

vessel

???

child?

BOGNÁR-KUTZIÁN,

1976; 1977;1977a

– 253

24. Szarvas-Szappanos

10 gravesGrave 1Grave 2Grave 3Grave 4Grave 5Grave 6Grave 7Grave 8Grave 9

Grave 10skelet. 1skelet. 2skelet. 3skelet. 4skelet. 5skelet. 6skelet. 7

pit????

pitpit?

pitpit

SE-NW????

E-WE-W

?E-W

???????

crouched left????

crouched leftcrouched left

?crouched left

???????

ochreochre

ochredisturbed

ochremass graveskull, ochreskull, ochre

skull

bones

none????

nonenonenonenone

nonenonenonenonenonenonenone

????????

53-59 y.

10-12 y.?

8-9 y.?

23-40 y.6-8 y.

?

female???????

female

childadultchildadultmale

femalechild

KRECSMARIK,1915; 1915a;TROGMAYER,1968c; 1969;

MAKKAY,1976;

MRT8, 1989;ZOFFMANN,1986; 1997

25. Szarvas, site23, Egyházföld

14 gravesGrave 1Grave 2

Grave 3Grave 4Grave 5Grave 6Grave 7Grave 8Grave 9

Grave 10Grave 11Grave 12Grave 13Grave 14

pitpit

pitpitpitpitpitpitpitpitpitpit?

pit

N-SNE-SW

NE-SWNE-SW

WSW-ENEN-S

WNW-ESEW-EN-S

ESE-WNWNW-SE

ENE-WSW?

W-E

crouched leftcrouched right

crouched leftcrouched rightcrouched leftcrouched left

crouched rightcrouched rightcrouched leftcrouched left

crouched rightcrouched left

?crouched right

nonevessel+2

axesnonenonenonenonenonenonenonenonenonenone

?none

17-18 y.?

?14-15 y.

??????

4-5 y.???

female?

?childmalemale

femalefemalemalemalechildmalechildmale

MAKKAY,1975a; 1980a; MRT8, 1989;ZOFFMANN,1986; 1997

26. Szarvas-Petõfi utca

1 grave ? ? ? 3-4 armbones+skull,Unio shells;

uncertainchronology

? ? ? MRT8, 1989

27. Szarvas-Krakkó

1 grave ? ? ? uncertainchronology

? ? ? MRT8, 1989.

28. Szegvár-Táncsics utca

2/A.

1 grave ? ? ? ? 44-48 y. male ZOFFMANN,1986; 1997

29. Szentes-Jaksorpart

1 grave ? ? ? ? ? ? TROGMAYER,1968c; 1969;ZOFFMANN,

1997

30. Szentpéterszeg-Körtvélyes

1 grave pit ? crouched none 5-6 y. child KALICZ,1979;

ZOFFMANN,1986; 1997

31. Szolnok-Szanda

5 gravesGrave 1

Graves 2-5

?

?

?

?

?

?

buried inside houses?

shellbracelet

none

?

?

female

2females,2 males,

2children

KALICZ andRACZKY,

1978; 1978a;RACZKY,

1982; 1988;ZOFFMANN,1997; 2001

32. Vaskút 1 grave ? E-W crouched left none 35-40 y. male KUTZIÁN,1944;

TROGMAYER,1968c; 1969;ZOFFMANN,

1997

33. Vörs,Máriaasszony-szi

get

2 gravesGrave 1Grave 2

?grave pit

?S-N

crouched leftcrouched left Unio shells

?vessel

??

?female

ARADI, 1992;KALICZ et al.,

2002

Table 1 - List of the Early Neolithic burials in Hungary according to PALUCH (2004) and PAP (this volume, Appendix III). Main characteristics according to ORAVECZ (2000).

254 –

2.4. ORIENTATION

The orientations are two. The most common is with the head towards the north (25: 19.4% of the total), theother is east-west (19: 14.7% of the total). They might have different meanings, although they do not seem to beparticularly significant.

2.5. BODY PAINTING

The bodies were often painted in red in order to retain a living colour, as it is indicated by the use of ochre. Afrequent deficiency of the publications is that, although the presence of ochre in the grave is reported, it is notmentioned whether it has been found on some part of the skeleton, or it was placed in the grave as lumps. Tracesof ochre have been observed in eight cases (KRECSMARIK, 1915: 13; 1915a: 19; TROGMAYER, 1968: 115, 118;MAKKAY, 1992: 130). It is important to point out that six are from Szarvas-Szappanos.

2.6. OTHER FEATURES

Besides the above-mentioned characteristics of the burial rites, there are a few that do not allow theformulation of more complex hypotheses. Nevertheless they confirm that our knowledge of theKörös-Starèevo burial customs is very limited.

One is the occurrence of Unio shells within the pits and burial pits. According to the published data, theywere found in two graves (MRT8, 1989: 429; KALICZ et al., 2002: 18). One is questionable, because in isuncertain that the site Szarvas-Petõfi utca belongs to the Körös Culture. Therefore, it can be stated that the Vörs,Máriaasszony-sziget burial (fig. 151) is the only one where the presence of shells is connected with the burialrite. Furthermore it seems reasonable that the deposition of shells into the pit took place in the first phase of thefuneral, because they were discovered beneath the skeletons (KALICZ et al., 2002: 18).

Another rarely observed, disputed point, concerns cremation. Burnt human bones are known from pitsexcavated from several sites (RACZKY, 1988, 21; MAKKAY, 1992, 133). They raise the question whether theymight indicate traces of cremation. Another problem is related with the occurrence of the so-called Venuses. Threecomplete anthropomorphic vessels, whose function is still undefined2, were discovered at three different KörösCulture sites in Hungary (Gorzsa, Öcsöd, Rákócziújfalu) (KUTZIÁN, 1944: II/XII. 10; GAZDAPUSZTAI, 1957: 11;KALICZ, 1970: photos 2-4). Apart from these, there are three-foot fragments (clay figurines or pedestalled vessels?) from Hódmezõvásárhely-Kotacpart-Vata-tanya (BANNER, 1935: 118, fig. 18, 19), Rákócziújfalu-Cseber-ér(RACZKY, 1980: 19, fig. 10, 7a-c), and Kistõke-Karácsonytelke (FOGAS, 2003: 55, fig. 3, 2a-c).

J. MAKKAY (1974: 150) has shown that the anthropomorphic vessels were in use throughout the entireBalkans and the Aegean during the Early Neolithic. These vessels must have played an important role duringceremonies: they do not occur very frequently, and their shape is limited to a few forms (RACZKY, 1980: 19). The Gorzsa Venus, in which the burnt fragments of a human skull were found, may explain the possible role of thethree above-mentioned anthropomorphic vessels.

3. GRAVE GOODS

A unique characteristic of the Early Neolithic cemeteries of southeast Europe is that, opposite to those oflater periods, they contain very few grave goods. The same can be said for the Körös-Starèevo Culture.Regarding this period, there are altogether 11 cases out of 130 burials discovered in Hungary (table 2). Thesedata coincide with those of the Körös-Starèevo Culture in which they were found in only 15 of the 110 graves sofar known (LEKOVIÆ, 1985: 158; RACZKY, 1988: 22).

Total number

of skeletons

Gender and age Grave goods

male female adult child unknown present absent no data

129 9 16 15 22 67 11 88 30

100% 7.1% 12.4% 11.6% 17.0% 51.9% 8.5% 68.2% 23.3%

Table 2 - Early Neolithic burials in Hungary according to gender, age and grave goods.

2. The bird-shaped vessel of Felgyõ is akin to these vessels, but the former one stands on a ring base, not on feet (CSALOG, 1957).

– 255

Although most of the excavated graves contained grave goods (6 cases), only one yielded one vessel, whichindicate the care for the deceased after-life (BANNER, 1932: 11-12; TROGMAYER, 1968c: 118, 120: see fig. 154;KUTZIÁN, 1977: 16-17; MRT8, 1989: 395; KALICZ et al., 2002: 17). One of these vessels contained two stoneaxes (MRT8, 1989: 395; fig. 9: 3-4). Because of their rarity, and besides their function fulfilled in society, theymight be related with the activity of the deceased. At present we know only one grave with fragments of twovessels (MRT10, 1998: 553), although the cultural attribution of the grave is uncertain. A bracelet, and a wristletwere found as grave good in two of the remaining graves (BANNER, 1932: 4; TROGMAYER, 1968c: 116; KALICZ

and RACZKY 1978, 26; 1978a, 274). According to the excavator, in the case of burials inside houses atSzajol-Felsõföld and Szolnok-Szanda the, personal belongings, ornaments and other cult objects of the houseswere purposely left as funeral offerings to be buried inside the graves on purpose (RACZKY, 1988: 21). In oneoccasion, an obsidian blade was unearthed from a grave, although it is questionable whether it is a grave good ornot; on the one hand the chronological position of the grave is uncertain (MRT10, 1998: 553).

According to the limited number of graves with grave goods and burials in the refuse pits, doubts have arisenwhether the skeletons belong to the local Körös peoples, or they represent enemies killed by theabove-mentioned population. In the second case, the Körös Culture graves are to be sought somewhere aroundthe sites (CSALOG, 1965: 19-25; RACZKY, 1988: 22). However, the graves so far excavated show the care takenfor the deceased, which contrasts with the interpretation concerning supposed enemies.

On the basis to the few graves containing grave goods, and the archaeological associations (table 3), wecannot formulate any suggestion about the composition of the Early Neolithic society. Furthermore, the numberof skeletons with funeral offerings is not only small, but also, according to the estimated population number(RACZKY, 1988: 21), there are very few ordinary graves. In contrast, there were attempts to define two verticallyseparated segments of the Körös-Starèevo society. The fact that mainly children and women graves predominatewithin the sites, and that adult men graves are very rare, supports the hypothesis that the graves located inside thesettlements belong to “ordinary” members of the community, while the remains of the “important” membershave been rarely discovered, or have not been detected at all (CHAPMAN, 1983: 10).

Age and gender Number ofskeletons

Disturbed Without grave goods With grave goods

Male 9 (7.0%) 2 (1.5%) 7 (5.4%) 0 (0.0%)

Female 16 (12.4%) 2 (1.5%) 11 (8.5%) 3 (2.3%)

Adult 15 (11.6%) 6 (4.5%) 9 (7.0%) 0 (0.0%)

Child 22 (17.0%) 9 (6.9%) 11 (8.5%) 2 (1.5%)

Gender and/or age determined 62 (48.0%) 19 (14.6%) 37 (28.5%) 5 (3.8%)

Gender and/or age undetermined 67 (52.0%) 14 (10.7%) 48 (37.2%) 6 (4.6%)

Total 129 (100.0%) 33 (25.3%) 85 (65.9%) 11 (8.5%)

Table 3 - Main characteristics of Early Neolithic burials in Hungary according to gender, age and grave goods.

A reanalysis of the Körös-Starèevo burials of Hungary shows their variable characteristics, although this isnot the main problem. If we analyse the development of the southeast European Neolithic, we notice that this was the period during which the graves excavated inside the settlement sites were spreading. Furthermore the sitesrepresent settled, productive units, which began to play an important role in the cult of the deceased (RACZKY,1988: 26). Burying the dead within the settlement may be linked with the idea that within the duality between oftaking care of the deceased, and being afraid of them, the former attitude was more important during that period.During the Neolithic, the notions of the world of beliefs reached a stage in which the settlements and thecemeteries necessarily separated (CHAPMAN, 1983: 10, 14-16; RACZKY, 1988: 26).

Attempts were made to explain the roots of the diversified rituals due to the ethnic differences (JOVANOVIÆ,1975: 5-18), although it is more likely to consider the diversities concerning the cult of the dead, and the variousafter-life beliefs. The graves and cemeteries with more uniform rites made their appearance later within largercommunities, which is demonstrated also by the burial customs.

256 –

Appendix III

ILDIKÓ PAP

THE HUMAN BONES

This short Appendix is a list the Körös graves from the sites discussed in this volume and theiranthropological characteristics. A more detailed analysis is given in Appendix II.

N. Site Grave no.Position

Orientation Notesleft right

1 Szarvas 8/23 1/1974 + N-S Female, (early) adult age group

2 11/1979 + NE-SW Bones not found

3 14/1979 + SE-NW Bones not found

4 2/1988 + SE-NW 14-15 years child, infantile II/juvenile

5 3/1988 + WSW-ENE Male (?), mature age group

6 10/1988 + N-S Male, juvenile age group

7 12/1988 + WSW-ENE Female, adult age group

8 14/1988 + W-E Female (?), adult age group

9 15/1988 + N-S Male, adult age group

10 16/1988 + ESE-WNW Male, adult/mature age group

11 17/1988 + NW-SE 4-5 years child (infantile I age group)

12 18/1988 + ENE-WSW Male, adult age group

13 23/1988 ? ? ? Juvenile age group

14 26/1988 + W-E Male, mature age group

15 Szarvas 8/8 A/19111 ? Crouched adult

16 B/1911 ? Crouched child

17 C/1912 ? Crouched (?) male, 20 years

18 D/19122 + E-W or SE-NW 170 cm female, 35-40 years

19 E/1912 + E-W or SE-NW Mature or senilis3

20 F/1912 + E-W or SE-NW Child

21 K/1930 Mature or senilis

22 1/1975 + E-W 53-59 years female, ochre

2/1975 The mass grave:

23 1: skull Child 10-12 years, ochre

24 2: skull Adult, ochre

25 3: skull Child, 8-9 years

26 4 Juvenile/adult male

27 5 Female, 23-40 years

28 6 Child, 6-8 years

29 7 Bones

1. Sources according to MRT8 (1989: 380-386).2. Graves D, E and F might also belong to the Pit-Grave Culture. This chronology is also suggested by the quantity of red ochre found around the skulls and alsothe fact that one of them (i.e. Grave D/1912) was found in a hard black layer in a frog-like position, which is also a characteristic of the pit-grave burials.3. Grave E/1912 was a very crouched burial, with lumps of red ochre near the fragmented skull bones.

– 257

Endrõd 3/6 1982 The mass grave:

30 skeleton 1 + S-N Crouched adult male

31 skeleton 2 N-S Prone burial, adult male

32 skeleton 3 + E-W? Adult male

33 skeleton 4 + N-S Infantile II, crouched

34 Grave A/1986 + S-N Adult male

35 Endrõd 3/35 Grave 2 6-7 years child (infantile I/II)

Endrõd 3/39 no graves found

36 Endrõd 3/119 Grave 1 E-W 3-4 years (infantile I)

37 Grave 2 W-E 5-6 years (infantile I)

38 Grave 3 W-E Adult, lying ventral

39 Grave 4 Infantile I skull

40 Grave 9 + NNW-SSE Crouched mature female

41 Grave 10 + NE-SW 9-10 years (infantile II)

42 Grave 11 Burnt adult bones (male mature agegroup) and 4-5 years child (infantile I)

43 Grave 13 + NE-SW Crouched mature male adult

44 Grave B ? ? ? 6 month child (infantile I)4

45 Grave 15 + W-E Crouched (?) infantile

46 Furta-Csátó Grave 1 + NE-SW Crouched adult

47 Grave 2 Skull, 5-6 years child

48 Grave 3 + WSW-ENE Crouched child

49 Grave 4 + WSW-ENE Crouched adult

50 Endrõd 6/82 Grave 1 + SE-NW Child (fig. 125, 3)5

51 1929/A

52 1929/B

53 1929/C6

Méhtelek-Nádas no graves found

4. Tiny bones from Grave B, a newborn baby, were found at Endrõd 3/119 at a depth of 115 cm in Trench 29. It was listed as Grave 15 by MAKKAY (1992: 134). 5. MAKKAY in MRT8 (1989: 156, and fig. 12).6. For further details see MAKKAY in MRT8 (1989: 155 and 156 and note 5). According to these contemporaneous sources one of the skulls was

ochre-painted, and one footed vessel was found as a grave good.

258 –

Appendix IV

ISTVÁN VÖRÖS

TAXON LIST OF THE ANIMAL BONES FROM THE MIDDLE/LATE COPPER AGE PIT-HOUSE AT ENDRÕD 3/6

FEATURES HOUSE PITS TOTAL

Depth (cms) 165 200 225 250 Total Pit a Pit D Total

DOMESTICATED

Cattle 328 344 142 54 868 210 45 255 1123

Sheep/Goat 78 86 59 10 233 100 17 117 350

Pig 14 14 10 12 50 17 3 20 70

Horse 1 - - - 1 - 4 4 5

Dog 3 6 3 - 12 3 - 3 15

Total 424 450 214 76 1164 330 69 399 1563

WILD

Aurochs 4 - 2 - 6 2 - 2 8

Red deer 1 - 3 - 4 - - - 4

Roe deer - - - - - 1 - 1 1

Boar - 3 - - 3 4 - 4 7

Total 5 3 5 - 13 7 - 7 20

Birds - - 3 - 3 1 - 1 4

Fish 1 - - - 1 - - - 1

Total 435 453 222 76 1181 338 69 407 1588

Table 1 - Number of bones from the Endrõd 3/6 Middle/Late Copper Age Pit House.

The structure of the bone remains most probably does not derive from herding, breeding or hunting horsesfor meat production, but it seems to result from animal husbandry with an unimportant role of hunting (1563bones [98.5%] of domesticated and only 25 [1.5 %] of wild animals fish and bird bones included).

We may conclude that the social and economic subsistence context necessary for the development of a horsehusbandry did not exist at that time.

– 259

Appendix V

JÁNOS MAKKAY

AN IMPORTED BOIAN CULTURE POTSHERD FROM BÉKÉSSZENTANDRÁS-FURUGY AND ITS POSITION IN THE HUNGARIAN MIDDLE NEOLITHIC

In my 1993 paper (MAKKAY, 1993a: 120 and fig. 1, 1)1 I made a short reference to a small potsherd discoveredin 1976 in an early tell settlement in the Körös Valley. The site lies on the bank of the dead arm of the Körös River in the outskirts of Szarvas, which at present belong to the village of Békésszentandrás, called Furugy by the villagers(fig. 1, 2) (MAKKAY in MRT8, 1989: 76-78: site 1/28). Further details and a more thorough description are kept fora future publication. The purpose of this note is to publish the specimen and its discovery context.

The reconnaissance works of the Intensive Field Survey of Hungary were made between 1974 and 1979 inthe Szarvas district. The good results2 of the surface collection at site 1/28, suggested that it was necessary toopen a trial excavation to evaluate the finds from this key site. The surface ceramic fragments showed invaluabletypological relationships between the ALP and Szakálhát Culture, which suggests that transitional types between the two phases might exist. The threat to the site caused by deep ploughing made this work very urgent. TheInstitute of Archaeology and the Békés County Museums jointly opened a trial excavation under the direction ofthe writer. Two short seasons were carried out in 1975-1976 during which Trenches II and III (6x3.5 and3x3.5 m2 respectively, with a 30 cm wide baulk in between) were excavated in 20 cm spits down to the sterile soil some 1.6-1.9 m below the surface. The excavation was later extended to explore the remains of an oven.

As mentioned above, the survey yielded both ALP and Szakálhát assemblages. During the two seasons it was possible to clarify that Furugy was settled during two main periods, the Early Middle (ALP) and Late Middle(Szakálhát) Neolithic, without any further occupation.

There are differences between the two phases as revealed by both the vessel shapes and decorations.Globular/hemispheric bowls and large hemispheric bowls are common to both phases. One of the maindifferences is that a few ALP bowls have a quadrangular central body, while their bases and mouths are circular.These characteristics do not recur in the Szakálhát vessels. Mid-sized, high-pedestalled bowls with a high andwide conical upper part are characteristic only of the ALP (figs. 145, 2; 146, 1-3 and 147, 12, etc.) and not theSzakálhát specimens. Necked and high-necked bottles are common amongst the ALP shapes (figs. 144, 3 and149, 1) while rarely occur in the Szakálhát assemblages.

The ALP linear decorative motifs are grooved, while the Szakálhát ones are incised. The latter were madewith a sharp, pointed bone or stone tool and the lines were not polished, while the AVK lines were obtained witha blunt tools; they were polished and the excess clay removed or smeared on the surface.

The ALP linear decorative motifs often consist of four groups separated by vertical lines or panels betweenthe parallel lines. This pattern is not characteristic of the Szakálhát vessels3 (i.e. hemispherical bowls withlengthened upper parts), which often show a running spiral pattern (running dogs, “S” spirals): unpolished panels between these parallel lines, running around the body were painted in red, while the surfaces above and belowwere kept unpainted and finely polished (dark grey, even blackish in colour: figs. 145, 3; 148, 1, 2, 5, 7-9 and149, 1). Very rarely the opposite can be observed: the running bands were polished and the surrounding surfacespainted. The paint of the Szakálhát pottery was always red-crusted, applied after burning, while the ALP paint isdark (black?) on brown, with a red or yellowish slipped background before burning. The running spiral motif isan exclusive and exquisite characteristic of the Szakálhát pottery manufacture together with the absence ofmedium and very high pedestals. These types are also not represented in the assemblages of the successor of theSzakálhát group, the Tisza Culture. The opposite can be said for the incised meanders (fig. 150, 1-8).

Although the analysis of the Furugy pottery assemblage is so far incomplete, my preliminary study hasidentified three phases of occupation within the Middle Neolithic period. The top spits, between 30 and 60 cms,are characterised by developed Szakálhát pottery with a few ALP sherds, which may be considered secondaryposition stray finds. They often show somewhat distorted motifs as, for instance, the irregular arrowhead.

The second layer of spits between 60 and 90 to 120 cms includes many ALP fragments and distinctivepainted-polished Early and Classic Szakálhát potsherds. Therefore it is a mixture of both ALP and Szakálháttypes. It can be argued that the two periods overlap, although the number of ALP sherds gradually decreases inthe upper spits. In effect the upper phases of the Furugy site show an increase of typical Szakálhát and agradual decrease of ALP potsherds.

1. The potsherd was described as belonging to the Vadastra Culture2. Characteristic ALP and Szakálhát potsherds literally covered the site surface.3. It rarely occurs that small knobs are applied at the joins of the spirals. This reminds us the original subdivision of the motifs into four panels on the ALP vessels.

260 –

The lower deposits below 90/120 cms yielded a few ALP and sporadic Szakálhát ceramic fragments. The incisedtechnique of these rare sherds is of ALP character while the alternate crusted painted/dark polished bands withinand outside the parallel lines are already represented (figs. 146, 2 and 4; 147, 2, 7, 9-12, and 14; 148, 2b). Thisdecorative pattern makes its appearance also in Trench III where, below a 2-3 cms thick yellow deposit a heavilytrampled black surface was recorded in most of the trench with a thin ash layer at its top. The pottery assemblage,below this undisturbed surface at 110 cms of depth (which sealed the debris between 110-170 cms), consists ofcharacteristic ALP fragments, although in a few cases sharply (Szakálhát like) incised lines are present on sherdsdecorated with an alternate painted-polished technique (figs. 146, 7; 147, 2-3, 12 and 148, 3-5). At the same timethere are typical ALP sherds of ALP shapes with a red-crusted (i.e. Szakálhát type) paint between meandering orparallel-incised lines (fig. 146, 1-4). Fragments of a ca. 35 cm high-pedestalled bowl4 (fig. 145, 2) also belong tothis class. These two types demonstrate that the origin of the Szakálhát pottery goes back to the ceramic technologyof the middle or developed ALP. Both the introduction and use of the red-crusted paint and the finely polished darksurface treatment can be correlated with the similar and contemporaneous Vinèa A pottery technology. Itsappearance and style might derive from the northern distribution of an invention of a hitherto unknown origin.

The field notes ad photographs taken shortly after the excavations record the sporadic occurrence of differentceramic types, among which are fragments of red-slipped and finely polished Esztár type vessels. The Esztárpottery is contemporaneous with the Classic and Late ALP phases along the eastern periphery of the GreatHungarian Plain and was strongly related to its eastern neighbour and variant: the Lumea Noa painted ware inCentral Transylvania. It applied a fine dark red, intentionally coloured slip, usually heavily polished or evenburnished. Black strips were painted on the surface before burning, occasionally most probably also after burning.Finely polished and black-on-red painted Esztár sherds often occur in the ALP and also Early Szakálhát contexts,while most of the Esztár assemblages include typically decorated ALP sherds. Characteristic Esztár fragments were found in Trench II at a depth of 60-90 cms in a context with Classic Szakálhát and ALP potsherds. Other pieces with worn surfaces came to light in Trench III/North, 100-120 and 140-170 cms and III/South, 90-110 cms. A smallfragment from Trench II (120-150 cms) is probably part of a Bükk type bowl as it is another fragment of a paintcontainer with traces of red paint in its inner surface. The incised decoration on other fragments strongly resemblesthe Bükk Culture fine ware. Some painted or very fine polished black and dark grey coloured fragments resemblethe pottery from a neighbouring Körös Valley site, Endrõd 36, with its fine dark grey and black polished fragmentsbelonging to high-necked flasks (fig. 149, 1). As the former analysis has demonstrated, incised and painted motifswould suggest contemporaneousness between this fine dark grey and black polished ware of Endrõd 36 and theClassic ALP and Esztár types. Szakálhát fragments were not collected from the hitherto excavated three features ofEndrõd 36 (MAKKAY, 1993a: fig. 1, 4-20). This means that Endrõd 36 was a very short duration site.

The study of all the sherds so far known might increase the number of painted and incised specimens.Nevertheless those described above are sufficient to point out that the Furugy layers represent the ALP-Szakálhát transitional period. The position of the imported sherd precisely fits into this moment.

The potsherd under discussion was found at a depth of 30-60 cms in Trench II (fig. 144, 1)5. Unfortunatelythe site supervisor did not record its recovery context although, according to the field notes of the present author,who arrived at the site in the company of. V.S. Titov attributed it to the Classic Szakálhát and to the typical Boianor Vadastra decorated vessels. The find is important because, to my knowledge, it is the first of this type found inHungary in a well-defined Neolithic pottery assemblage. It is undoubtedly imported from a region located southof the Carpathians. Since this type of decoration is totally unknown in this part of the Great Hungarian Plain, itcan be excluded that the potsherd is intrusive from the uppermost, ploughed soil. The wall fragment of a large,coarse container is decorated with an incrusted bead motif: a row of small plastic lentil-shaped knobs (made as alow relief) is surrounded by a white inlay (fig. 144, 2). Also this type is unknown from the decorative repertoireof both the ALP and Szakálhát pottery assemblages and therefore it can be considered exogenous.

People from other regions may have produced this ceramic type locally or itinerant tradesmen might havebrought it to the site from distant places. Our present knowledge cannot provide data useful for the identificationof the area where these vessels were produced, although they seem to be allochtonous. The closest parallels (fig.144, 1) can be extended to similarly decorated vessels of the Giuleºti Phase of the Boian Culture (COMªA, 1974: Pl.8, 9 and 13). Undoubtedly my Romanian friends and colleagues will have the final say regarding this problem.

The chronological relationships between the Classic Szakálhát and the Giuleºti Phase of the Boian Culturesuggest that this contact was due to the systematic trade of raw stone material of north Balkan sources and/orworked and unworked Spondylus to the Carpathian Basin.

4. Reconstructed height. The highest pedestalled bowl of the ALP Culture.5. Unfortunately the specimen cannot be located in the collections of the Békéscsaba and Szarvas Museums. As I have already pointed out the materialwas moved from the Szarvas Museum a few days before May 15th, 1979 (MAKKAY, 1989a: 78, note 4).

– 261

Appendix VI

JÁNOS MAKKAY

BOX REFERENCE NUMBERS (BRN)

1. SZARVAS, SITE 8/23

A0 = Trench I/0-20 cm + Trench I/ Pit 1, 110-200 cm.A1 = Trench I/Pit 1, 110-230 cm.A2 = Trench I-II/Pit 1, 110-220 cm + Trench I/50-110 cm (upper part of Pit 1) + Trench IV/30-60 cm + Trench

VI/90-125 cm.A3 = Trench I-II/Pit 1, 90-110 cm + Trench I-II/Pit 1, 110-230 cm + Trench VI/30-125 cm.A4 = Trench I-II/Pit 1, 110-230 cm + Trench VI/90-125 cm + Trench I-II/Pit 1, 30-110 cm + Trench IV /30-60

cm, middle part of the Trench.A5 = Silo-Trench 5/Pit 4.A6 = Silo-Trench 5.A7 = Silo-Trench 1, ploughed soil.A8 = Trench I-II/Pit 1, 90-110cm + Trench VI/ 90-125 cm + Trench I/ 50-110 cm + Trench I-II/Pit 1, 110-220 cm

+ Trench VI/125-175 cm.A9 = Trench I-II/Pit 1, first layer + Trench I-II/Pit 1, lower part + Trench VI/90-bottom.A10 =Trench I-II/Pit 1, 110-230 cm.A11 =Trench I-II/Pit 1, first (upper) layer + Trench I-II/Pit 1, second (lower) layer + Trench I/50-110 cm (upper

layer) + Trench VI/90-125 cm.A12 =Pit 1, first (upper) layer + Pit 1, second (lower) layer + VI/90-125 cm.A13 =Trench VI, pit + Trench I-II/Pit 1, second (lower) layer + Trench I-II/Pit 1, first (upper) layer + Trench

VI/90-125 cm + Trench I-II/Pit 1, second (lower) layer, i.e. 110-220 cm.A14 =Trench I-II/Pit 1, 30-110 cm + Trench IV/1975, Nyugat = western part of the Trench, 30-60 cm + Trench

I/1974/Pit 1, second (lower) layer, i.e. 110-220 cm + Trench VI/1975, 125-175 cm + Trench II/Pit 1, first(upper) layer, i.e. 70-90 cm.

A15 =Trench I/Pit 1, second (lower) layer, i.e. 110-220 cm + Trench VI/1975, 90-175cm.A16 =Trench I/1974/Pit 1, first (upper) layer, i.e. 50-110 cm + Trench I-II/ Pit 1, second (lower) layer, i.e. 110-220 cm.A17 =Trench I/1974/Pit 1, first (upper) layer, i.e. 50- 110 cm + Trench I/Pit 1, second (lower) layer, i.e. 110-220

cm + Trench IV/1975 middle part of the Trench, 30-60 cm.A18 =Trench III/30-90 cm + Trench I/1974/Pit 1, first (upper) layer, i.e. 50-110 cm + Trench I/1974/ Pit 1,

second (lower) layer, 110-220 cm. A19 =Trench VI/1975, 125-175cm + Trench I-II/Pit 1, first (upper) layer, 30-110 cm.A20 =Trench I-II/Pit 1, 0-110 cm (first, upper layer and above).A21 =Trench V/1975, 0- 30 cm.A22 =Trench I-II/Pit 1, second (lower) layer, i.e. 110-230 cm.A23 =Trench I-II/Pit 1, second (lower) layer, i.e. 110-220 cm.A24 =Trench IV/middle part of the Trench, 30-60 cm.A25 =Trench I-II/Pit 1, 0-110 cm (first, upper layer and above).A26 =Trench III/1975, 30-90 cm.A27 =Trench I/Pit 1, first (upper) layer, i.e. 40- 110 cm.A28 =Trench I-II/Pit 1, 0-110 cm (first, upper layer and above).A29 =Trench IV/1975, Nyugat = western part of the Trench, 60-90 cm.A30 =Trench I-II/Pit 1, the total depth from 0 to 220 cm.A31 =Trench III/1975, 30-90 cm.A32 =Trench III/1975, 30-90 cm.A33 =Trench I-II/Pit 1, 0-110 cm (first, upper layer and above).A34 =Trench I-II/Pit 1, 0-110 cm (first, upper layer and above).A35 =Trench I-II/Pit 1, 0-110 cm (first, upper layer and above).A36 =Trench I-II/Pit 1, the second (lower) layer, i.e. 110-230 cm.A37 =Trench I-II/Pit 1, 0-110 cm (first, upper layer and above).A38 =Trench I/Pit 1, the first (upper) layer, i.e. 40-110 cm.A39 =Trench VI/Pit 1, 60-90 cm.A40 = Trench I-II/Pit 1, 0-110 cm (first, upper layer and above).

262 –

A41 = Trench I-II/Pit 1, 0-110 cm (first, upper layer and above).A42= Trench VI/90-125 cm + Trench V/30-60 cm + Trench I-II/Pit 1, second (lower) layer, i.e. 110-230 cm +

Trench I/Pit 1, first (upper) layer, i.e. 50-110 cm.A43 = Trench IV, the middle part of the Trench, 30- 60 cm.A44 = Trench I-II/Pit 1, second (lower) layer, i.e. 110-230 cm.A45 = Trench V/árok = trial Trench, 60-90 cm.A46 = Trench I-II/Pit 1, 0-110 cm (first, upper layer and above).A47 = Trench I-II/Pit 1, 0-110 cm (first, upper layer and above).A48 = Trench I-II/Pit 1, 0-110 cm (first, upper layer and above).A49 = Trench IV, the middle part of the Trench, 30-60 cm. A50 = Trench IV/Nyugat = western part of the Trench, 30-60 cm.A51 = Trench I-II/Pit 1, 0-110 cm (first, upper layer and above).A52 = Trench I-II/Pit 1, 0-110 cm (first, upper layer and above).A53 = Trench I-II/Pit 1, second (lower) part, i.e. 110-230 cm.A54 = Trench I-II/Pit 1, second (lower) part, i.e. 110-220 cm.A55 = Trench I-II/Pit 1, second (lower) part, i.e. 110-230 cm.A56 = Trench I-II/Pit 1, first (upper) part, i.e. 50-110 cm.A57 = Trench VI/1975, 125-175 cm (Trench VI/Pit 1) + Trench VI/1975, 30-90 cm.A58a+b+c+d+e = Trench I-II/Pit 1, 0-110 cm (first, upper layer and above).A59 = Trench I-II/Pit 1, 0-110 cm (first, upper layer and above).A60a+b = Trench I-II/Pit 1, 0-110 cm (first, upper layer and above).A61 = Trench I-II/Pit 1, 0-110 cm (first, upper layer and above).A62a+b = Trench I-II/Pit 1, 0-110 cm (first, upper layer and above).A63a+b+c = Trench I-II/Pit 1, second (lower) layer, i.e. 110-230 cm. A64a+b = Trench I-II/Pit 1, second (lower) layer, 110-230 cm.A65a+b = Trench I-II/Pit 1, second (lower) layer, 110-230 cm.A66 = Trench I-II/Pit 1, second (lower) layer, 110-230 cm. A67 = Trench I-II/Pit 1, second (lower) layer, 110-220 cm.A68 = Trench I-II/Pit 1, 0-110 cm (first, upper layer and above).A69 = Trench I-II/Pit 1, 0-110 cm (first, upper layer and above).A70 = Trench I-II/Pit 1, total depth from 0 to 220 cm.A71a+b = Trench I-II/Pit 1, second (lower) layer, i.e. 110 –220 cm.A72 = Trench I-II/Pit 1, second (lower) layer, i.e. 110 –230 cm.A73 = Trench I-II/Pit 1, second (lower) layer, i.e. 110 –230 cm.A74 = Trench I-II/Pit 1, 0-110 cm (first, upper layer and above). A75 = Trench I-II/Pit 1, 0-110 cm (first, upper layer and above).A76 = Trench I-II/Pit 1, second (lower) layer, i.e. 170-230 cm + Trench II/1974, 150-170 cm (= Pit 1, second,

lower layer).A77 = Trench III-IV, 0-30 cm.A78 = Trench I-II/Pit 1, second (lower) layer, i.e. 110 –230 cm.A79 = Trench IV, 1975, around Grave 9.A80 = Trench IV, 1975, Nyugat = western part of the Trench, 90-120 cm.A81 = Trench IV, Nyugat = western part of the Trench, 90-120 cm.A82 = Trench IV, Közép = middle part of the Trench, 30-60 cm.A83 = Trench IV, Közép = middle part of the Trench, 30-60 cm.A84 = Trench V, 0-30 cm.A85a+b = Trench V, 30-60 cm. A86 = Trench VI, 90-125 cm.A87 = Trench VI, 90-125 cm.A88 = Trench VI/Pit 1, 125-175 cm.A89 = Trench VI/Pit 1, 125-175 cm. A90a+b = Trench VI, 30-60 cm.A91a+b+c = Trench VI, 60-95 cm.A92a+b+c+d = Trench VI/Pit 1, 90-125 cm. A93 = Silo-Trench 2/Pit 1.A94 = Silo-Trench 2, Pit north. A95 = Silo-Trench 3/Pit 1. A96 = Silo-Trench 3/Pit 2.

– 263

A97 = Silo-Trench 3/Pit 3.A98 = Silo-Trench 3/Pit 8.A99a+b+c+d+e = Silo-Trench 4/Pit 2 = Pit 4/2A100 = Trench VIII, Pit 1.A101 = Trench IX, Pit 1, 105-180 cm.A102 = Silo-Trench 1/Pit 1 + Silo-Trench 1/Pit 3 + Silo-Trench 1/Pit 5c + Silo-Trench 1/Pit 7.A103 = Silo-Trench 2/Pit 1 + Silo-Trench 5/Pit 6 + Silo-Trench 3/Pit 1.A104 = Silo-Trench 2/Pit 2 + Silo-Trench 3/Pit 2.A105 = Silo-Trench 3/Pit 4.A106 = Silo-Trench 3/Pit 5 + Silo-Trench 3/Pit 8.A107 = Silo-Trench 4/Pit 1.A108 = Silo-Trench 4/Pit 8.A109 = Silo-Trench 5/Pit 2.A110 = Silo-Trench 5/Pit 1 + Silo-Trench 5/Pit 3.A111 = Silo-Trench 5/Pit 4 + Silo-Trench 5/Pit 6.A112 = Silo-Trench 2/Pit 2.A113 = Silo-Trench 3/Pit 3.A114 = Silo-Trench 5, at 50 m (reconstructed large storage jar).

2. SZARVAS, SITE 8/8

D1a+b+c+d+e+f+g+h+i+j= Trench I/30-60 cmD2a+b+c= Trench I/north, 60-85 cmD3a+b+c= Trench I/south, 60-85 cmD4a+b+c+d+e+f= Trench II/ north, 20-70 cmD4g+h+i+j=Trench II/ north, 20-40 cmD5a+b+c+d+e= Trench II/30-60 cmD6a+b+c= Trench III/1975, 20-40 cmD7a+b+c+d+e=Trench III/1975, 40-60 cm D8 =Trench III/1971, north, 20- 40 cmD9a+b+c+d+e+f=Trench III/1975, north, 40-60 cmD10a+b+c+d=Trench III/1975, north, 60-80 cmD11a+b+c=Trench III/1975, above Grave 1D12 = Grave 1D13 =Trench III/Pit 1, 60-80 cmD14a+b=Trench IV/0-40 cmD15a+b+c+d+e+f+g=Trench IV/1975, 40-60 cmD16 =Trench IV/ 60-80 cmD17a+b+c+d= Trench V/1975, east, 20-60 cmD18= TrenchV/1975, west, 20-60 cmD19 =Trench V/1975, 60-80 cmD20a+b+c+d=Trench V/Pit 1, 80-120 cmD21a+b+c+d=Trench V/Pit 1, 120-170 cm.

3. ENDRÕD, SITE 3/6

C1 = Trench IV/1985, 30-60 cm + Trench VI/1985, Pit 4a.C2a+b+c+d+e+f+g+h = Trench VIII/1985, Pit 4c.C2i = Trench VIII/Pit 4c (= Trench XVIII/West, and Trench XXXI/40-85 cm, upper layer)C3a+b = Trench XVIII/Pit West, 100-130 cm + 130-200 cm.C3c = Trench XVIII/1986 + XXXI/Pit West, 40-85 cm + 85-135 cm.C3d = Trench XVIII/1986+ XXXI/Pit West, 85-135 cm.C4a+b+c = Trench XVIII/1986, Pit East, 70-140 cm.C5a+b = Trench I/1982, black pit.C6a+b = at the foot of the grave, 40-100 cm + the west corner of the pit = Trench I/1982, western end of the Körös pit.C7a+b = Trench I/1982. C8 = Trench I/1982. C9 = Trench I/70-100 cm.C10a+b+c+d+e = Trench I/1982, 100-120 cm.

264 –

C11a+b = Trench I/140 cm, below the skeletons of Grave 1. C12a+b = Trench VII/1985, 130-165 cm.C13 = Trench VII/1985, 140-160 cm, eastern part.C14 = Trench VII/1985, 225-250 cm, eastern part.C15a+b = Trench VII/1985, 165-200 cm.C16 = Trench VII/1985, pit 5, 190-200 cm. C17 = Trench VII-VIII/1985, old baulk, 0-100 cm + Trench VII/West, 140-160 cm + Trench VIII/old baulk, 80-120 cm. C18 = Trench XVII/1985, 50-80 cm. C19 = Trench XVII/1985, 90-115 cm.C20 = Trench XVIII/1986, 3, arbitrary layer.C21 = Trench XVIII/1986, east, 70-90 cm.

4. ENDRÕD, SITE 3/35

F1a+b+c = Trench III/1975, Pit 3.F2a+b+c+d+e+f+h = Trench III/1975, Pit 3.F3a+b = Trench III/1975, Pit 3.F4 = Trench III/1975, Pit 3, stray finds. F5 = Trench III/1975, 0-20 cm.F6 = Trench III/1975, west, 30-60 cm.F7 = Trench III/1975, west, 60-80 cm .F8a+b+c+d = Trench III/1975, west, Pit 3, 80-100 cm.F9a+b+c = Trench I-III/1975, west, 60-80 cm+60-85 cm.F10a+b = Trench I/1975, west.F11a+b+c = Trench I/1975, west, 30-60 cm.F12-F21 = inventorised pieces of the ALP, Esztár and Szakálhát groups.

5. ENDRÕD, SITE 3/39

B1a+b+c+d+e+f = Trench I/1975, 20-40 cm.B1g = Trench I/1975, House 1, 30-60 cm.B2a+b = Trench I/1975, House 1.B3a+b=Trench I/1975, House 1.B4a+b = Trench I/1975, House 1.B5a+b = Trench I/1975, House 1.B6 = Trench I/1975, House 1.B7a+b = Trench I/1975, House 1.B8a+b+c+d = Trench I/1975, House 1.B9a+b+c = Trench I/1975, House 1.B10 = Trench I/1975, Pit 1.B11a+b = Trench I/1975, Pit 1. B12a+b = Trench I/1975, House 1.B13 = Trench I/1975, Pit 1.B14 = Trench I/1975, Pit 1.B15a+b = Trench I/1975, Pit 1.B16a = Trench I/1975, House 1.B16b = Trench I/l975, House 1, extension.B17a+b = Trench I/1975, Pit 1.B18 = Trench I/1975, Pit 1. B19 = Trench I/1975, Pit 1.B20 = Trench I/1975, Pit 1.B21 = Trench I/1975, Pit 1.B22a+b+c+d = Trench I/1975, Pit 1.B23a+b = Trench II/1976, 0-70 cm.B24a+b+c = Trench II/1976, west, above the house in Trenches II-III + Trench III/1976, above the house, 20-50 cm.B25a+b = Trench III/1976, east, 50-70 cm, fill of the house in Trenches II-III.B26 = Trench III/1976, west, 50-70 cm, fill of the house in Trenches II-III.B27 = extension of Trench III/1976, E-W, 0-90 cm.B28a+b = extension of house in Trench III, fill of the house in Trenches II-III.

– 265

B29 = Trench IV/1976, 0-10 cm.B30a+b+c+d+e+f+g = Trench IV/1976, 0-10 cm + 10-40 cm + east, 10-40 cm + extension 0-35 cm + west, 10-40 cm.B31 = Trench IV/1976, Pit 1, 40-130 cm.B32 = Trench IV/1976, Pit 1, 0-70 cm.B33a+b+c+d+e+f+g = Trench IV/1976, Pit 1, 70-150 cm.B34a+b = Trench IV/1976, house, the oven. B35 = Trench IV/1976, Pit 1, the northern inner pit + Trench IV/1976, Pit 2.B36 = Trench V/1976, arbitrary layers 1-2.B37a+b+c = Trench V/1976, western part + baulk, 75-95 cm.B38a+b = Trench V/1976, black soil in the east and middle part of the Trench.B39 = Trench V/1976, west, Western Pit, 95-120 cm.B40 = Trench V/1976, above Pit 1.B41a+b = Trench V/1976, Pit 1.B42 = Trench V/1976, Pit 2.B43a+b+c+d+e+f = Trench V/1976, Pit 3.B44 = Trench V/1976, Pit 4.B45 = Trench VI/1976. B46a+b+c = Trench VIII/1977, 20-60 cm.B47 = Trench VIII/1977, 60 cm – virgin soil.B48a+b+c+d+e+f+g+h = Trench VIII/1977, Pit 1.B49 = Trench VIII/1977, Pit 2.B50 = Trench IX/1977, northern corner, 0-90 cm.B51 = Trench XIX/1978, Pit 2.B52a+b = Trench IX/1977, oven. B53a+b+c = Trench IX/1977, south, 70-90 cm (= uppermost part of fill of Pit 1 in Trench VIII/1977).B54a+b+c+d+e+f+g+h = Trench IX/1977, south, 90-110 cm (= Pit 1 in Trench VIII/1977).B55a+b+c+d+e = Trench IX/1977, house, 90-120 cm.B56a+b+c = Trench IX/1977, south, 130-145 + 130-150 cm (= Pit 1 in Trench VIII/1977).B57a+b = Trench IX/1977, 100-160 cm, black house, near wattle and daub pile. B58 = Trench XIX/1978, west + Trench X/1977, 150-190 cm. B59a+b = Trench IX/1977, Pit 1, 160-200 cm (= Pit 1 in Trench VIII/1977).B60 = Trench IX/1977, south, 110-120 cm (= Pit 1 in Trench VIII/1977).B61a+b = Trench IX/1977, extension, 60-100 cm (= Pit 1 in Trench VIII/1977).B62a = Trench X/1977, middle, 30-90 cm.B62b = Trench X/1977, middle, 100-130 cm.B63a+b+c+d = Trench X/1977, north, 60-90 cm + 100-130 cm.B64 = Trench X/1977, Pit 1, 120-140 cm (= Pit 1 in Trench VIII/1977).B65a+b = Trench X/1977, Pit 1, 140-160 cm (= Pit 1 in Trench VIII/1977).B66a+b = Trench X/1977, Pit 1, 150-180 cm (= Pit 1 in Trench VIII/1977).B67 = Trench X/1977, Pit 1, 180-210 cm + 210-230 cm (= Pit 1 in Trench VIII/1977).B68a+b = Trench X/1977, Pit 1, 230-bottom (= Pit 1 in Trench VIII/1977).B69 = Trench X/1977, Pit 1, extension, 85-105 cm. B70a+b+c+d+e = Trench X/1977, House 1 + extension.B71a+b+c = Trench XI/1977, 40-60 cm.B72a+b+c+d+e+f+g = Trench XI/1977, 60-120 cm. B73a+b+c+d+e+f = Trench XIV/1977, 40-60 cm. B74a+b+c+d+e = Trench XIV/1977, 60-80 cm. B75a+b+c+d+e = Trench XIV/1977, 80-100 cm.B76a+b+c+d = Trench XIV/1977, 60-80 cm.B77 = Trench X/1977, south, 60-90 cm. B78a = Trench XIX/1978, south, above the opening of the pit = Trench X/1977, Pit 1 (= Pit 1 in Trench VIII/1977).B78b+c+d+e+f = Trench XIX/1978, south, 60-90 cm = Trench X/1977, Pit 1 (= Pit 1 in Trench VIII/1977).B79a+b+c+d+e+f+g+h+i+j+k= Trench XIX/south, 90-120= Trench X/1977, Pit 1 (= Pit 1 in Trench VIII).B80a+b+c+d+e+f+g+h+i+l = Trenches V-VI/1976, 0-70 cm. B81 = Trench VI/1976.B82a+b+c+d = Trench VI/1976, 60-90 cm. B83a+b = Trench VI/1976, 90-140 cm. B84a+b+c+d = Trench VII/1976, 35-60-90 cm.

266 –

B85a+b = Trench VII/1976, 60-90-120 cm, west (= Pit 1 in Trench VIII/1977).B86a+b+c+d+e+f+g+h = Trench XIX/1978, 90-120 cm = Trench X/1977, Pit 1 (= Pit 1 in Trench VIII/1977).B87a+b+c+d+e+f+g+h+i = Trench XIX/1978, 90-150 cm = Trench X/1977, Pit 1 (= Pit 1 in Trench VIII/1977).B88a+b+c+d+e+f+g+h+i+l+m+n+o++j+k+p+r+s+t = Trench XIX/1978, 120-150 cm = Trench X/1977, Pit 1 (=

Pit 1 in Trench VIII/1977).B89a+b+c+d+e+f = Trench XIX/1978, Pit 1, 150-180 + 150-190 cm (= Pit 1 in Trench VIII/1977).B90a+b = Trench XIX/1978, north, 60-90 cm.B91a+b+c+d = Trench XIX/1978, north, 90-120 cm. B92a+b+c+d = Trench XIX/1978, western and southern parts, 90-120 cm.B93a+b+c+d+e+f+g+h = Trench XIX/1978, west, (= Pit 1 in Trench VIII/1977).B94 = Trench XIX/1978, Pit 2.B95a+b+c+d = Trench XIX/1978, east, above pit 2, 90-120 cm.B96 = Trench XIII/1977, 0-80 cm. B97a+b+c = Trench XII/1977, 20-60 cm. B98 = Trench XII/1977. B99a+b = Trench XIII/1977, house. B100 = Trench XV/1978, west, 30-60 cm. B101a+b = Trench XII/1977, south, 45-80 cm. B102a+b+c = Trench XII/1977, 45-70 cm. B103 = Trench XII/1977, southern part, 80-120 cm. B104 = Trench XII/1977, north, 60-100 cm. B105a+b+c+d+e = Trench XII/1977, west, 30-60 cm. B106 = Trench XVI/1977, small pit near Grave 88.B107a+b+c+d+e+f+g+h+i = Trench XVI/1978, east, 30-60 cm. B108a+b+c+d = Trench XVI/1978, west, 30-60 cm, ashy layer. B109a+b+c = Trench XVI/1978, 60-90 cm. B110a+b+c+d+e+f = Trench XVII/1978, 30-60 cm. B111 = Trench XVII/1978, 60-90 cm. B112a+b+c+d+e+f+g+h = Trench XVIII/1978, Pit 1, 30-60 cm. B113a+b+c = Trench XVIII/1978, west, 30-120 cm. B114a+b+c+d+e = Trench XVIII/1978, east, 50-110 cm.B115 = Trench XVIII/1978, east, Pit 1, 110-150 cm. B116a+b+c+d+e+f = Trench XVIII/1978, west, 60-90 cm. B117a+b = Trench XVIII/1978, west, 90-120 cm. B118a+b = Trench XVIII/1978, west, Pit 1, 120-150 cm. B119 = Trench XVIII/1978, 60-90 cm. B120 = Trench XVIII/1978, west, Pit 1. B121 = Trench XVIII/1978, Pit 1. B122a+b+c+d+e+f+g+h = Trench XX/1978, house, west, 0-50 cm. B123a+b+c+d = Trench XX/1978, house, southeast, 0-50 cm. B124a+b+c+d+e = Trench XX/1978, house, southeastern part. B125a+b = Trench XX/1978, house, northeastern part.B126a+b = Trench XX/1978, house, north. B127a+b = Trench XX/1978, house, south. B128a+b = Trench XX/1978, house, extension. B129 = Trench XX/1978, house, find-spot 11 around loom weights. B130 = Trench XX/1978, house, find-spots 9-10. B131a+b+c = Trench XX/1978, house ruins. B132a+b = Trench XX/1978, house, inner pit.B132c = Trench XX/1978, house, the inner pit, northern part.B133 = Trench XX/1978, house, near the inner pit. B134a+b+c+d+e+f = Trench XXIII/1978, west, 0-50 cm. B135a+b+c = Trench XXIII/1978, east, 0-50 cm. B136a+b+c+d = Trench XXIII/1978, Pit 1.B137 = Trench XXIII/1978. B138 = Trench XXIV/1978, east, 30-60 cm. B139a+b+c+d+e+f = Trench XXV/1978. B140a+b+c+d = Trench XXVI/1978. B141a+b+c+d+e+f+g+h+i+j+k+l+m+n+o = Trench XXVII/1978. B142a+b+c = Trench XXVIII/1978.

– 267

B143a+b+c+d+e+f+g = Trench XXIX/1978, west. B144a+b+c+d+e = Trench XXIX/1978, east.B145a+b+c+d = Trench XXIX/1978, the northwestern part. B146a+b = Trench XXIX/1978, north. B147a+b+c = Trench XXIX/1978, the middle part.B148 = Trench XXIX/1978. B149 = Trench XXIX/1978, house cleaning.B150a+b = Trench XXIX/1978, quadrant A.B151 = Trench XXIX/1978, quadrant A.B152a+b+c+d+e = Trench XXIX/1978, quadrant C.B153 = Trench XXIX/1978, quadrant D.B154a+b+c+d = Trench XXIX/1978, quadrants A+B.B155a+b+c+d+e = Trench XXIX/1978, Pit in quadrant C1.B156a+b+c+d = Trench XXX/1978. B157a+b+c = Trench XXX/1978, quadrant A.B158a+b+c+d+e+f+g+h+i+j = Trench XXX/1978, Pit 1.

6. ENDRÕD, SITE 3/119

E1 = Trench 2/50-70 cm.E2 = Trenches 3-4/1986, 50-70 cm.E3a+b = Pit 4 in Trenches 3-4.E3c = Pit 4 in Trenches 3+17/130-190 cm.E4 = Trench 15/30-50 cm.E5a+b = Trenches 6+10/0-50 cm.E6 = Trenches 7+11, 0-40 cm.E7 = Trench 12/30-50 cm (House 1).E8 = Trench 11/40- 50 cm (House 1).E9a-e = Trenches 6+11/50-60+40-70+50-70 cm, above Pit 5.E10 = Trenches 6+7+11/70-90 cm (= Pit 5).E11 = Trenches 6+7+10+11/90-110 cm (= Pit 5).E12 = Trenches 6+7+10+11/50-130 cm (Pit 5).E13 = Trenches 7+11/130-150 cm (Pit 5).E14 = Pit 7 between 150-200 cm.E15 = Pit 7 between 150-200 cm.E16 = Trench 18.E16a = Trench 16/30-50 cm.E17 = Trench 19/0-45 cm, above Pit 9.E18 = Trench 19/Pit 9, 45-55 cm.E19 = Trench 19/Pit 9, 50-80 cm.E20 = Trench 19/Pit 9, 80-110 cm.E21a-c = Trench 19/Pit 9, 110-130 cm.E22a-b = Trench 19/Pit 9, 130-175 cm.E23a-c = Trenches 20-24/Pit 10, 30-60 cm.E24a-c = Trenches 20-24/Pit 10, 60/70-120 cm.E25 = Trench 26,/north + south, 60-90 cm.E26 = Trench 25/30-90 cm + Trench 26/30-90 cm + Trench 26/Pit 11 + Trench 26/Pit 2 + sherd scatter C +

90-160 cm + Trench 27/Pit 2.E27 = Trench 27/0-30 cm.E28 = Trench 27/north, 30-60 cm.E29 = Trench 27/middle, 30-60 cm.E30a-b = Trench 27/south, 30-60 cm.E31 = Trench 27/60-90 cm, below House 2.E32 = Trench 27/middle, 90-110 cm.E33 = Trenches 27 + 29, from the baulk. E34 = Trench 27/50-80 cm + Trench 27/Pit 1, below 70 cm, from the cleaning.E35a-b = Trench 27/90-110 cm, Pit 12.E35c = Trench 27/90-110 cm (=Pit 12) + Trench 29/40-70 cm + Trench 29/30-50 cm + Trench 29/30-40 cm

(from the debris of House 2) + Trench 30/west, 30-40 cm + Trench 30/middle, 30-60 cm.E36 = Trench 29/central part, 0-30 cm.

268 –

E37 = Trench 28/30-60 cm, grey layer.E38 = Trench 29/northwest, 30-60 cm, outside House 2.E39 = Trench 29/House 2.E40a-c = Trench 29/central part, House 2, 30-60 cm.E41a-c = Trench 29/30-60 cm, area of House 2. E42 = Trench 29/35-60 cm, House 2.E42a = Trench 29/30-70 cm, House 2.E43 = Trench 29/35-60 cm, House 2, collapsed ruins.E44a-b = Trench 29/south, 40-70 cm, House 2.E45 = Trench 29/middle, 30-50 cm, fill found north of House 2, belonging to it.E46 = Trench 29/south, 60-95 cm.E47 = Trench 29/north, 60-95 cm.E48a-c = Trench 29/65-90 cm, Pit 12, below House 2.E49a-b = Trench 29/90-120 cm, Pit 12.E50 = Trench 29/110-160 cm, Pit 12.E51= Trench 29-31/baulk, finds can belong both to House 2 and Pit 12.E52 = Trench 30/60-90 cm + Trench 32/east, 30-60 cm = Pit 12, 30-90 cm.E53 = Trench 30/Pit 12.E54 = Trench 30/west, 30-40 cm.E55a-b = Trench 30/middle and east, 30-60 cm.E56a-f = Trench 30/south and west, 60-90 cm = Pit 12.E57a-d = Trench 30/100-120 cm = Pit 12.E58a-g = Trench 30/130-160 cm = Pit 12.E59 = Trench 30/Pit 12, lower part.E60 = Trench 31/south, 30-60 cm, outside House 2.E61 = Trench 31/south, 50-85 cm, outside House.E62 = Trench 31/north, 30-90 cm, Pit 15 of the Bronze Age.E63 = Trench 31/30-60 cm, House 2.E64 = Trench 31/south, 70-100 cm, House 2.E65a-b = Trenches 30+32/from the baulk between the two trenches.E66a-b = Trench 32/middle, 20-40 cm, from the debris of House 2.E67 = Trench 32/30, southwest, 30-70 cm, outside House 2.E68 = Trench 32/west, 30-50 cm.E69 = Trench 32/east, Pit 12.E70a-b = Trench 32/east, 50-80 cm, Pit 12.E71a-c = Trench 32/60-90 cm.E72 = Trench 32/80-110 cm, Pit 12.E73 = Trench 32/100-130 cm, Pit 12.E73a = Trench 33/30-60-80-110-160 cm + 105-200 cm = Pit 12.E74 = Trench 32/130-160 cm, Pit 12.E75a-f = Trench 35/middle and south, 60-90 cm, probably from Pit 13.E76 = Trench 35/85-110 cm, probably from Pit 13.E77 = Trench 35.E78a-c = Trench 37/north, 30-60 cm.E79 = Trench 37/south, 30-60 cm.E80 = Trench 37/30-60 cm.E81ai = Trenches 37-38/60-90 cm, Pit 13.E82a-p = Trenches 37+38/80-100-125 cm, Pit 13.E83ai = Trenches 37+38/100-125 cm, Pit 13.E84a-g = Trenches 37+38/125-150 cm, Pit 13.E85a-d = Trenches 37+38/150-200 cm, Pit 13.E86 = Trench 40/30-60 cm.E87 = Trench 41/southeastern corner, 30-50 cm.E88 = Trench 42/30-60 cm.E89 = Trench 42/Pit 14.E92 = Trench 46/30-60 cm.E95 = Trench 52/east, 30-60 cm.

– 269

Appendix VII

JÁNOS MAKKAY

PLASTIC BAG NUMBERS (PBN)(FINDS IN THE STORES OF THE TESSEDIK SÁMUEL MUSEUM, SZARVAS)1

1. ENDRÕD, SITE 3/39

3: Trench XIV/1976, 60-80 cm.119: mixed material: Trench X/South, 60-90 cm, Trench X/House 1, Trench XIII/House 1, fragments of a large

container.

2. ENDRÕD, SITE 3/82

69: bones of Grave 1 (MRT8, 1989: 156 and fig. 12).

3. ENDRÕD, SITE 3/119

139: Trench 20/1987, 30-60 cm. 31: Trenches 20-21/1986, 0-30 cm.81: Trenches 22-23/1987/22-23, east, 75 cm. 112: Trenches 22-23/1987, 80-120 cm. 88: Trenches 22-23/1987, Pit 10, eastern part, below 120 cm. 162: Trenches 22-23/1987, 30-60 cm.73: Trench 24/1987, 30-60 cm.131: Trench 24/1987, 60-90 cm.99: Trench 25/1987, northwest, fragments of a large storage jar. 65: Trench 26/1987. 83: Trench 27/1987, middle, 30-60 cm. 87: Trench 27/1987, 60-90 cm, below house 2. 107: Trench 27/1987, House 2, vessel 2, and probably also vessel 8. 122: Trench 27/1987, middle, 90-110 cm. 124: Trench 27/1987, pit. 135: Trench 27/1987, 60-90 cm, House 2? 78: the baulk between Trenches 27+29/1987. 132: Trenches 27+29+30+32: fragments of a large storage jar. 149: Trenches 27-32/1987. 47: Trench 28/1987, south, 60-95 cm. 89: Trench 28/1987, 30-60 cm, grey and black layer. 39: Trench 29/1987, 30-50 cm.41: Trench 29/1987, 30-40 cm. 52: Trench 29/1987, middle, 0-30 cm. 56: Trench 29/1987, middle, House 2, 30-50 cm. 84: Trench 29/1987, 90-110 cm.105: Trench 29/1987, Pit 12, 60-90 cm.117: Trench 29/1987, House 2. 74: two assemblages mixed: Trench 29/1987, 0-30 cm and Trench 30/1987, west, 0-30 cm. 75: two assemblages mixed: Trench 29/1987, 90-120 cm and Trench 32/1987, House 2: the fragments of a large

container decorated with true barbotine. 110: Trench 29/1987, Pit 12, 110-130 cm. 120: Trench 29/1987, Pit 12, 90-120 cm. 134: Trench 29/1987, middle, 30-50 cm, House 2. 150: Trench 29/1987, 35-60 cm, house 2. 151: Trench 29/1987, middle, 65-90 cm, below House 2.

1. The large plastic bags containig these finds are numbered with Arabic numbers from 1 to 192. The missing numbers refer to finds from other sites (i.e.Szarvas 8/75, Örménykút 7/13, etc.). This list was made on April 16th, 2003.

270 –

147: Trench 29/1987, north, 60-90 cm. 111: Trenches 29+31/1987. 113: Trench 30/1987, Pit 12, 110-120 cm.121: Trench 30/1987, west, 30-40 cm. 133: Trench 30/1987, east + middle, 30-60 cm. 37: Trench 30/1987, 60-90 cm. 67: Trench 30/1987, middle, 30-60 cm. 77: Trench 30/1987, Pit 12, 60-90 cm. 102: Trench 30/1987, 60-90 cm. 72: Trenches 30-31/1987, House 2, fragments of a large storage jar with barbotine decoration.44: Trench 31/1987, Pit 2, 60-90 cm. 54: Trench 31/1987, south, 30-60 cm, fragments of a large pitcher. 57: Trench 31/1987, House 2, 30-60 cm. 64: Trench 31/1987, 0-30 cm. 68: Trench 31/1987, 0-30 cm. 70: Trench 31/1987, south, 70-90 cm, below House 2. 98: Trench 31/1987, House 2, 30-40 cm. 114: Trench 30-31/1987, north, 30-60 cm, Bronze Age Pit 15? 125: Trench 31/1987, Pit 3, 60-90 cm. 115: Trench 32/1987, middle, 30-40 cm, House 2. 116: Trench 32/1987, Pit 12,130-160 cm. 13: Trench 32/1987, Pit 12, 100-130 cm. 27: Trench 32/1987, 100-130 cm.48: Trench 32/1987, 15-45 cm, House 2. 50: Trench 32/1987, House 2, 30-50 cm. 60: Trench 32/1987, 0-30 cm.137: Trench 32/1987, Pit 12, 80-110 cm. 58: Trench 33/1988, 80-100 cm. 85: Trench 33/1988, 30-60 cm.91: Trench 33/1988, lower part of Pit 12, 105-125 cm. 79: two assemblages mixed: Trench 33/1988, 0-30 cm (?), or pit 12, and Trench 34/1988, 0-30 cm. 106: Trench 34/1988, west, 30-60 cm. 159: Trench 34/1988, 50-80 cm. 160: Trench 35/1988, north, 30-60 cm. 144: Trench 35/1988, Pit 12, 60-90 cm. 148: Trench 35/1988, middle, 30-60 cm, above Pit 12, probably House 2. 42: Trench 35/1988, finds above Pit 12. 62: Trench 35/1988, 30-60 cm, above Pit 12.66: Trench 35/1988, south, 60-90 cm. 82: Trench 35/1988, 30-60 cm, probably House 2. 101: Trench 35/1988, south, 85-110 cm, Pit 12. 140: Trench 35/1988, north, 0-30 cm.153: Trench 36/1988, ashy layer (Pit 12). “A” package.43: Trench 37/1988, 30-60 cm. 49: Trench 37/1988, Pit 2, 100-140 cm. 61: Trench 37/1988, Pit 12, 60-80 cm. 94: Trench 37/1988, middle, 30-60 cm, mixed with Trench 35/1987, extension, 30-90 cm. 95: Trench 37/1988, north, 30-60 cm.103: Trench 37/1988, 0-30 cm. 138: Trench 37/1988, south, 30-60 cm. 142: Trench 37/1988, middle, 30-60 cm.143: Trench 37/1988, north, 30-60 cm.154: Trench 37/1988, south, 80-100 cm, Pit 13. 193: Trench 37/1988, 30-60 cm.156: Trenches 37+38/1988, Pit 13, 100-125 cm. 157: Trench 38/1988, 0-30 cm.96: Trenches 37-38/1988, Pit 13, 80-100 cm. 126: Trenches 37-38/1988, Pit 13, lowest part, 125-150 cm.80: Trench 38/1988, Pit 13, 60-90 cm. 146: Trench 38/1988.

– 271

163: Trench 38/1988, south, 30-60 cm, probably the edge of House 2. 46: Trench 41/1989, southeast, 0-30 cm.145: Trench 42/1989, 90-120 cm.161: Trench 42/1989, Pit 1, 90-120 cm. 104: Trench 42/1989, Pit 1, 60-100 cm.108: Trench 42/1989, Pit 1, at a depth of some 90 cm. 118: Trench 42/1989, Pit 1, 30-60 cm.136: Trench 42/1989, southeast, 30-60 cm.141: Trench 42/1989, Pit 1, 60-110 cm.97: Trench 45/1989, west, 0-60 cm.168: Trench 53/1989. 165: Trench 55/1989, Pit 18, 30-60 cm. 90: Trench 55/1989, Pit 18, 30-60 cm. 93: Trench 55/1989, Pit 18, 60-90 cm.86: Trench 55/1989, Pit 18, 90-120 cm.100: House 2: fragments of a large container with barbotine decoration.40: unlabelled.45: House 1 or 2, 30-60 cm. 55: without indication of trench number, 105-125 cm. Körös Culture.

4. SZARVAS, SITE 8/23

192: 1988/silo-Trench 1, Pit 3 (Pit 1/3).92: 1988/ silo-Trench 1, Pit 5 (Pit 1/5).28: 1988/silo-Trench 1, Pit 7 (Pit 1/7). 152: 1988/silo-Trench 1, 0-20 cm.169: 1988/silo-Trench 1. 158: 1988/silo-Trench 1, between 20-40 m. 130: finds found in the area of silo- Trench 1 in 1993. 123: stray finds collected in 1993 in the area of the silo-Trenches 1-5/1988, mostly silo-Trench 1. 170: 1988/silo-Trench 2, Pit 1 (Pit 2/1). 185: 1988/silo-Trench 2, Pit 1 Pit (2/1).5: 1988/silo-Trench 2, Pit 1/a (Pit 2/1a). 174: 1988/silo-Trench 2, Pit 2 (Pit 2/2).180: 1988/silo-Trench 2, Pit “North”. 18: 1988/silo-Trench 2, Pit 3 (Pit 2/3). 51: fine stone axe found on the northern part of 1988/silo-Trench 2 in 1993.155: finds collected on the western part of 1988/silo-Trench 2 in 1993. 167: finds rescued in 1993 on the area of 1988/silo-Trench 2. 63: finds of rescue operations made in 1993 on the area between silo-Trenches 2 and 3/1988. 109: 1988/silo-Trenches 2 and 3, finds found in the vicinity of the “large pit”, and the “smaller pit”. 128. finds collected in 1993on the area of the 1988/silo-Trenches 2 and 3. 21: 1988/silo-Trench 3, Pit 1 (Pit 3/1).11, 53, 184: 1988/silo-Trench 3, Pit 2 (Pit 3/2). 190: 1988/silo-Trench 3, Pit 4 (Pit 3/4). 187: 1988/silo-Trench 3, Pit 7 (Pit 3/7).166: finds collected in 1993 on the area of silo-Trenches 3-4/1988. 188: 1988/silo-Trench 4, Pit 1 (Pit 4/1).10, 173, 175-177, 189, 191: 1988/silo-Trench 4, Pit 2 (Pit 4/2).171: 1988/silo-Trench 4, Pit 3 (Pit 4/3), animal bones.182: 1988/silo-Trench 3, Pit 3 (Pit 4/3).183: 1988/silo-Trench 4, Pit 7 (Pit 4/7). 179: 1988/silo-Trench 5, Pit 2 (Pit 5/2).181: 1988/silo-Trench 5, Pit 3 (Pit 5/3).186: 1988/silo-Trench 5, Pit 4 (Pit 5/4). 172: 1988/silo-Trench 5, Pit 5 (Pit 5/5).178: 1988/silo-Trench 5, oven. 2: 1988/silo-Trench Pit 5, feature at 50 m: Körös pottery, mostly coarse ware (see also fig. 13, 3).

272 –

R E F E R E N C E S

AMMERMAN, A.J. 2003 – Looking Back. In AMMERMAN, A.J. and BIAGI, P. (eds.) The Widening Harvest. The NeolithicTransition in Europe: Looking Back, Looking Forward. Archaeological Institute of America, Colloquia andConference Papers 6: 3-23. Boston, Massachusset.

ARADI, Cs. M. 1992 – Vörs-Máriaasszonysziget, site 44. Régészeti Füzetek, I (44): 26-27. Budapest.

BÁCSKAY, E. and SIMÁN, K. 1987 – Some remarks on chipped stone industries of the Earliest Neolithic populations inpresent Hungary. In KOZ£OWSKI, J.K. and KOZ£OWSKI, S.K. (eds.) Chipped Stone Industries of the early FarmingCultures in Europe. Archaeologia Interregionalis: 107-130. Ossolineum, Kraków.

BADER, T. 1968 – Beiträge zur Kenntnis anthropomorpher Figurinen aus der Criº-Kultur. Acta Musei Napocensis, 5:381-388. Cluj.

BÁLINT, Cs. 2004 – A Nagyszentmiklósi kincs. Régészeti tanulmányok. Varia Archaeologica Hungarica, XVIa.Archaeological Institute of the HAS, Budapest.

BÁNFFY, E. 2004 – The 6th millennium BC boundary in Western Transdanubia and its role in the Central EuropeanNeolithic transition (The Szentgyörgyvölgy-Pityerdomb settlement). Varia Archaeologica Hungarica, XV.Archaeological Institute of the HAS, Budapest.

BANNER, J. 1932 – A kopáncsi és a kotacparti neolitikus telepek és a tiszai kultúra III. periódusa. [Die neolithischeAnsiedlungen von Hódmezõvásárhely-Kopáncs und Kotacpart und die III. Periode der Theiss-Kultur]. Dolgozatok,8: 1-48. Szeged.

BANNER, J. 1935 – Ásatás a hódmezõvásárhlyi Kotacparton. [Ausgrabungen zu Kotacpart bei Hódmezõvásárhely].Dolgozatok, 11: 97-125. Szeged.

BANNER, J. 1942 – Das Tisza-, Maros-, Körös-Gebiet bis zur Entwicklung der Bronzezeit. Szeged-Leipzig.

BANNER, J. 1954 – Funde der Körös-kultur von Hódmezõvásárhely-Bodzáspart. Acta Archaeologica AcademiaeScientiarum Hungaricae, 4: 1-8. Budapest.

BIAGI, P., SHENNAN, S. and SPATARO, M. 2005 – Rapid rivers and slow seas? New data for the radiocarbon chronology ofthe Balkan Peninsula. In NIKOLOVA, L, FRITZ, J. and HIGGINS, J. (eds.) Prehistoric Archaeology & AnthropologicalTheory and Education. Reports of Prehistoric Research Projects, 6-7: 41-50. Salt Lake City-Karlovo.

BIENKOWSKI, P. and MILLARD, A. (eds.) 2000 – Dictionary of the Ancient Near East. British Museum Press, London.

BIRÓ, K.T. 2001 – Lithic materials from the Early Neolithic in Hungary. In KERTÉSZ, R. and MAKKAY, J. (eds.) From theMesolithic to the Neolithic. Proceedings of the International Archaeological Conference held in the DamjanichMuseum of Szolnok, September 22-27, 1996. Archaeolingua, 11: 89-100. Budapest.

BLACK, J. and GREEN, A. 1997 – Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia: An Illustrated Dictionary.Published in co-operation with British Museum Press. University of Texas Press, Austin.

BOGNÁR-KUTZIÁN, I. 1976 – Szakmár-Kisülés. Régészeti Füzetek, I (29): 16. Budapest.

BOGNÁR-KUTZIÁN, I. 1977 – Ausgrabung in Szakmár-Kisülés im Jahre 1975. Mitteilungen des Archäologischen Institutsder Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 7: 13-17. Budapest.

BOGNÁR-KUTZIÁN, I. 1977a – Szakmár-Kisülés. Régészeti Füzetek, I (30): 12. Budapest.

BOGUCKI, P. 2003 – Neolithic Dispersal in Riverine Interior Central Europe. In AMMERMAN, A.J. and BIAGI, P. (eds.) TheWidening Harvest. The Neolithic Transition in Europe: Looking Back, Looking Forward. Archaeological Institute of America, Colloquia and Conference Papers, 6: 249-272. Boston, Massachusset.

BÖKÖNYI, S. 1974 – History of Domestic Mammals in Central and Eastern Europe. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest.

BÖKÖNYI, S. 1983-1985 – Dating experiments based on animal bones. Mitteilungen des Archäologischen Instituts derUngarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 14: 71-79. Budapest.

BÖKÖNYI, S. 1984 – Die Herkunft bzw. Herausbildung der Haustierfauna Südosteuropas und ihre Beziehungen mitSüdwestasien. In SCHWABEDISSEN, H. (ed.) Die Anfäge des Neolithikums von Orient bis Nordeuropa, IX, DerBeginn der Haustierhaltung in der “Alten Welt”: 24-43. Köln-Wien.

– 273

BÖKÖNYI, S. (ed.) 1992 – Cultural and landscape changes in South-East Hungary, I. Reports of the Gyomaendrõd project.Archaeolingua, 1. Budapest.

BÖKÖNYI, S. 1992a – The Early Vertebrate Fauna of Endrõd 119. In BÖKÖNYI, S. (ed.) Cultural and landscape changes inSouth-East Hungary, I. Reports of the Gyomaendrõd project. Archaeolingua, 1: 195-299. Budapest.

BONA, I. 1986 – Szabolcs-Szatmár megye régészeti emlékei I. In DERCSÉNYI, D. (ed.) Szabolcs-Szatmár Megye MûemlékeiI: 16-91. Budapest.

CHAPMAN, J. 1983 – Meaning and illusion in the study of burial in Balkan Prehistory. In POULTER, A.G. (ed.) AncientBulgaria, 1: 1-45. University of Nottingham Press, Nottingham.

CHAPMAN, J. 1986 – Technological and stylistic analysis of the Early Neolithic chipped stone assemblage from Méhtelek,Hungary. In BÍRÓ, K.T. (ed.) International conference on prehistoric flint mining and lithic raw materialidentificatin in the Carpathian Basin, Budapest-Sümeg, 20-22 May: 31-52. Budapest.

CHAPMAN, J. 2000 – Fragmentation in archaeology: people, places and broken objects in the prehistory of South EasternEurope. Routledge, London.

CHAPMAN, J. 2000a – Tension at funerals. Micro-Tradition Analysis Later Hungarian Prehistory. Archaeolingua, SeriesMinor, 14. Budapest.

CHAPMAN, J. 2003 – From Franchti to the Tiszazug: two Early Neolithic worlds. In JEREM, E. and RACZKY, P. (eds.)Morgenrot der Kulturen. Frühe Etappen der Mensshheitsgeschichte in Mittel- und Südosteuropa. Festschrift fürNándor Kalicz zum 75. Geburtstag, Archaeolingua, 15: 89-108. Budapest.

CHAPMAN, J.C. and TYLECOTE, R.F. 1983 – Early copper in the Balkans. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 49:374-375.

COLEMAN, J.E. 1992 – Greece, the Aegean, and Cyprus. In EHRICH, R.W. (ed.) Chronologies in Old World Archaeology:

247-288. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London.

COMªA, E. 1974 – Istoria comunitãþilor culturii Boian. Editura Academiei, Bucharest.

CSALOG, J. 1957 – Újkõkori idoljaink arcformájának kérdésérõl [On the question of the shape of our neolithic idols’ faces].Archaeologiai Értesítõ, 84: 207-211. Budapest.

CSALOG, J. 1965 – Zur Frage der Körös-Gruppe in Ungarn. Acta Antiqua et Archaeologica, 8: 19-25. Szeged.

CSALOG, J. 1968 – A betemetett vermekbe való temetkezések kérdése [The question of burials into refilled storage pits]. AMóra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve, 1968: 21-25. Szeged.

CZETÕ, A. 1996 – Bezdédi helytörténeti olvasókönyv [Reader of local history], I. Bezdéd.

DAY, J.V. 2001 – Indo-European origins: the anthropological evidence. Institute for the Study of Man. Washington DC.

DEVOTO, G. 1962 – Origini Indoeuropee. Sansoni, Firenze.

DICKINSON, O. 1994 – The Aegean Bronze Age. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

DIMITRIJEVIÆ, V. and TRIPKOVIÆ, B. 2002 – New Spondylus findings at Vinèa-Belo Brdo: 1998-2001 campaigns andregional approach to problem. Starinar, 52: 47-58. Belgrade.

DOMBORÓCZKI, L. 2001 – Településszerkezeti sajátosságok a középsõ neolitikum idõszakából, Heves megye területérõl[Settlement patterns of the Middle Neolithic in co. Heves]. In ÍÙÌÏÓ I. “Fiatal õskoros kutatók” I. összejövete-lének konferenciakötete, Debrecen, 1997, november 10-13: 67-93. Déri Múzeum, Debrecen.

DOMBORÓCZKI, L. 2003 – Radiocarbon data from Neolithic archaeological sites in Heves county (North-Eastern Hungary).Agria, 39: 5-76. Eger.

DOMBORÓCZKI, L. 2004 – 302. Tiszaszõlõs, Domaháza, Puszta-Réti dûlõ. Régészeti kutatások Magyarországon 2003[Archaeological investigations in Hungary 2003]: 303-305. Kulturális Örökségvédelmi Hivatal és a MagyarNemzeti Múzeum, Budapest.

ECSEDY, I. 1972 – Neolithische Siedlung in Dévaványa, Katonaföldek. Mitteilungen des Archäologischen Instituts derUngarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 3: 59 -63. Budapest.

ECSEDY, I. 1979 – The people of the Pit-Grave kurgans in Eastern Hungary. Fontes Archaeologici Hungariae. AkadémiaiKiadó, Budapest.

274 –

EHRICH, R.W. 1977 – “Starèevo revisited”. In MARKOTIÆ, V. (ed.) Ancient Europe and the Mediterranean. Studiespresented in honour of Hugh Hencken: 59-67. Aris & Phillips, Warminster.

EHRICH, R.W. (ed.) 1992 – Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, I-II. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago andLondon.

EHRICH, R.W. and BANKOFF, H.A. 1992 – Geographical and chronological patterns in East Central and SoutheasternEurope. In EHRICH, R. W. (ed.) Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, I: 375-406. University of Chicago Press,Chicago and London.

ENDRÕDI, A. 2004 – Everyday life and spirituality at the end of the Copper Age. 5000 years old remains of the BadenCulture in Budapest. Budapest Historical Museum, Budapest.

FEKETE, M. 2004 – The development and connections of the Hallstatt-culture. Budapest (unpublished manuscript).

FEWKES, V.J. 1936 – Neolithic sites in the Moravo-Danubian area (Eastern Yugoslavia). Bulletin of the American School ofPrehistoric Research, 12: 5-81. Cambridge, Massachussets.

FITZ, J. and MAKKAY, J. (eds.) 1972 – Die Aktuellen Fragen der Bandkeramik. Akten der Pannonia Konferenzen, I.Székesfehérvár.

FODOR, I. (ed.) 1996 – The Ancient Hungarians. Exhibition Catalogue. Hungarian National Museum, Budapest.

FOGAS, O. 2003 – Neue Kultgegenstände der Körös-Kultur in Nagytõke. A Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve, 9: 49-55.Szeged.

FÜLEP, F. 1951 – The Five-Year-Plan of Hungarian Archaeology. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae,1: 10-15. Budapest.

FÜZES, M. 1990 – A földmívelés kezdeti szakaszának növényleletei Magyarországon [Plant remains of the beginningagriculture in Hungary]. Mitteilungen des Tapolcaer Städtischen Museums, 1: 139-238. Tapolca.

GATSOV, I. 1993 – Neolithic chipped stone industries in Western Bulgaria. Institute of Archaeology, JagellonianUniversity, Kraków.

GAZDAPUSZTAI, Gy. 1957 – A Körös kultúra lakótelepe Hódmezõvásárhely-Gorzsán [The settlement of the Körös Cultureat Hódmezõvásárhely-Gorzsa]. Archaeologiai Értesítõ, 84: 3-13. Budapest.

GIMBUTAS, M. (ed.) 1976 – Neolithic Macedonia as reflected by excavations at Anza, Yugoslavia. MonumentaArchaeologica, 1. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

GIMBUTAS, M. 1989 – The language of the Goddess. Unearthing the hidden symbols of Western Civilization. Thames &Hudson, London.

GOLDMANN, GY. 1979 – Csorvás-Orosházi útfél. Régészeti Füzetek, I (32): 9. Budapest.

GOLDMANN, GY. 1991 – A Körös kultúra késõi szakaszának idõrendjérõl Dévaványa-Réhely leletei alapján. ArchaeologiaiÉrtesítõ, 118: 33-44. Budapest.

GRYGIEL, R. 2004 – The Neolithic and the Early Bronze Age in the Brzeœæ Kujawski and Os³onki region, vol. I. EarlyNeolithic: linear pottery culture. Muzeum Archeologiczne i Etnograficzne, £odŸ.

GRONENBORN, D. 1989 – Neue Überlegungen zur Funktion von Schlitzgruben. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt, 19:339-342. Mainz.

HÄUSLER, A. 2003 – Nomaden, Indogermanen, Invasionen. Zur Entstehung eines Mythos. Orientwissenschaftliche Hefte 5.

Mitteilungen des SFB “Differenz und Integration“ 3, Halle-Wittenberg, Orientwissenschaftliches Zentrum derMartin-Luther-Universität.

HAVASSY, P. 2001 – ’Hatalmasok viadalokban’: az Alföld szkíta kora [’Great in battles’: the Alföld during the Scythians].Gyula.

HORVÁTH, F. 1994 – Az Alföldi vonaldíszes kerámia elsõ önálló települése a Tisza-Maros szögében:Hódmezõvásárhely-Tére-fok. In LÕRINCZY, G. (ed.) Von der Steinzeit bis zum Mittelalter. Studien zum 60Geburtstag von Ottó Trogmayer: 95-124. Szeged.

HORVÁTH, T. 2002 – A unique anthropomorph representation of the Baden culture. Antaeus, 25: 423-426. Budapest.

HORVÁTH, T. 2002a – Késõ rézkori agyagmaszk Balatonõszödrõl [Late Copper Age claymask from Balatonõszöd].Õsrégészeti Levelek, 4: 31-39. Budapest.

– 275

HORVÁTH, T., JUHÁSZ, I. and KÖHLER, K. 2003 – Zwei Brunnen der Balaton-Lasinja Kultur von Balatonõszöd. Antaeus,26: 265-300. Budapest.

HORVÁTH, L.A. and SIMON, K.H. 2003 – Das Neolithicum und die Kupferzeit in Südwestransdanubien. InventariaPraehistorica Hungariae, VIII. Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum, Budapest.

ISTVÁNOVITS, E. 2001 – Reste einer frühslawischen Siedlung in der Gemarkung von Kisvárda. A Nyíregházi Jósa AndrásMúzeum Évkönyve, 43: 165-183. Nyíregyháza.

JANKOVICH, B.D. (ed.) 2001 – Békés és Békéscsaba környéke. Magyarország Régészeti Topográfiája, 10. AkadémiaiKiadó, Budapest.

JANKOVICH, D. and KVASSAY, J. 1986 – 15/2. Gyomaendrõd-6. lelõhely. Régészeti Füzetek, I (39): 11. Budapest.

JEREM, E. and RACZKY, P. (eds.) 2003 – Morgenrot der Kulturen. Frühe Etappe der Menschheitsgeschichte in Mittel- undSüdosteuropa. Festschrift für Nándor Kalicz zum 75. Geburtstag. Archaeolingua, 15. Budapest.

JOVANOVIÆ, B. 1975 – The Origin of the Early Neolithic in Djerdap. Godišnjak Cetra za balkanološka ispitivanjaAkademije nauka I umjetnosti Bosne I Hercegovine, 14: 5-18. Sarajevo

JUHÁSZ, I. 2002 – Glazed roman dish from Szarvas. A Békés Megyei Múzumok Közleményei, 23: 89-97. Békéscsaba.

KACZANOWSKA, M. and KOZ£OWSKI, J.K. 1983 – Einige Bemerkungen zur Fragen der Steinindustrien der Vinèa-Kultur.Istrazivanja, 10: 253-272. Novi Sad.

KACZANOWSKA, M. and KOZ£OWSKI, J.K. 1986 – Gomolava – chipped stone industries of the Vinèa Culture. PraceArcheologiczne, 39. Kraków.

KACZANOWSKA, M. and KOZ£OWSKI, J.K. 1990 – Chipped stone industry of the Vinèa Culture. In SREJOVIÆ, D. andTASIÆ, N. (eds.) Vinèa and its World. Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts. Symposia, LI: 35-47. Beograd.

KACZANOWSKA, M., KOZ£OWSKI, J.K. and MAKKAY, J. 1981 – Flint hoard from Endrõd, site 39, Hungary (Körös Culture). Acta Archaeologica Carpatica, 21: 105-117. Kraków.

KALICZ, N. 1970 – Clay gods. The Neolithic period and Copper Age in Hungary. Corvina Kiadó, Budapest.

KALICZ, N. 1977 – Kora- és késõneolitikus leletek Lánycsók határában [Früh- und Spätneolitische Funde in derGemarkung des Ortes Lánycsók. Vorbericht]. A Janus Pannonius Múzum Évkönyve, 22: 137-156. Pécs.

KALICZ, N. 1979 – Szentpéterszeg-Körtvélyes. Régészeti Füzetek, I (32): 27. Budapest.

KALICZ, N. 1980 – Neuere Forschungen über die Entstehung des Neolithikums in Ungarn. In KOZ£OWSKI, J.K. andMACHNIK, J. (eds.) Problemes de la Néolithisation dans certaines régions de l’Europe: 97-122. Kraków-Wroc³aw.

KALICZ, N. 1990 – Frühneolitische Siedlungsfunde aus Südwestungarn. Inventaria Praehistorica Hungariae, IV. MagyarNemzeti Múzeum. Budapest.

KALICZ, N. 1993 – The Early Phases of the Neolithic in Western Hungary (Transdanubia) [Zgodnje neolitske faze v zahodniMadžarski (Transdanubiji)]. Poroèilo o raziskovanju paleolita, neolita in eneolita v Sloveniji, XXI: 85-135.Ljubljana.

KALICZ, N., BIRÓ, K.T., and VIRÁG, ZS. M. 2002 – Vörs, Máriaasszony-sziget. Régészeti kutatások Magyarországon 1999[Archaeological Investigations in Hungary 1999]: 15-26. Budapest.

KALICZ, N. and KALICZ-SCHREIBER, R. 2002 – Die Verbreitungsgrenze der frühneolithischen Kulturen in Transdanubien(Westungarn). Preistoria Alpina, 37: 25-44. Trento.

KALICZ, N. and KOÓS, S.J. 2000 – Újkõkori arcos edények a Kárpát – medence északkeleti részébõl [NeolithischeGesichtsgefäße im Nordosten des Karpatenbeckens]. A Herman Ottó Múzum Évkönyve, 39: 15-44. Miskolc.

KALICZ, N. and KOÓS, S.J. 2000a – Település a legkorábbi újkõkori sírokkal Északkelet-Magyarországról [Eine Siedlungmit ältestneolithichen Gräbern in Nordostungarn]. A Herman Ottó Múzum Évkönyve, 39: 45-76. Miskolc.

KALICZ, N. and KOÓS, S.J. 2002 – Eine Siedlung mit ältestneolithischen Gräbern in Nordostungarn. Preistoria Alpina, 37:45-79. Trento.

KALICZ, N. and MAKKAY, J. 1972 – Gefäße mit Gesichtsdarstellungen der Linienbandkeramik in Ungarn. In BACHMAIER,

F., RUTTKAY, E., MELICHAR, H. and SCHULTZ, O. (eds.) Idole. Prähistorische Keramiken aus Ungarn.Veröffentlichungen des Naturhistorischen Museums, Neue Folge, 7: 9-15. Wien.

276 –

KALICZ, N. and MAKKAY, J. 1974 – A méhteleki agyagistenek [The clay gods of Méhtelek]. Exhibition guide. Jósa AndrásMuseum, Nyíregyháza.

KALICZ, N. and MAKKAY, J. 1974a – A méhteleki ásatások jelentõsége [The importance of the Méhtelek-excavations].Szabolcs-Szatmári Szemle, 9 (2): 78-84. Nyíregyháza.

KALICZ, N. and MAKKAY, J. 1977 – Frühneolithische Siedlung in Méhtelek–Nádas. Mitteilungen des ArchäologischenInstituts der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 6: 13-24. Budapest.

KALICZ, N. and MAKKAY, J. 1977a – Die Linienbandkeramik in der Großen Ungarischen Tiefebene. Studia Archeologica,VII. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest.

KALICZ, N. and MAKKAY, J. 1978 – Medina-Margitsziget. Régészeti Füzetek, I (28): 15-16. Budapest.

KALICZ, N. and RACZKY, P. 1978 – Szolnok-Szanda-Tenyõsziget-Dersi gát. Régészeti Füzetek, I (31): 25-26. Budapest.

KALICZ, N. and RACZKY, P. 1978a – Szolnok-Szanda-Tenyõsziget-Dersi gát. Archaeologiai Értesítõ, 105: 274. Budapest.

KALICZ, N. and RACZKY, P. 1981 – The precursors of the “horns of consecration” in the Southeast European Neolithic. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 33: 5-20. Budapest.

KALICZ, N. and VIRÁG, ZS.M. 2001 – Neuere Siedlungsfunde der frühneolithischen Starèevo-Kultur aus Südwestungarn. In GINTER, B., DROBNIEWICZ, B., KACZIOR, B., NOWAK, M. and PO£TOWICZ, M. (eds.) Problems of the Stone Age inthe Old World. Jubilee Book dedicated to Professor Janusz K. Koz³owski: 265-279. Kraków.

KALICZ, N., VIRÁG, ZS.M. and BIRÓ, K.T. 1998 – The Northern periphery of the Early Neolithic Starèevo culture insouth-western Hungary: a case study of an excavation at Lake Balaton. Documenta Praehistorica, 25: 151-188.Ljubljana.

KARMANSKI, S. 2000 – Donja Branjevina. CD-ROM distributed by the author.

KARMANSKI, S. 2005 – Donja Branjevina: a Neolithic settlement near Deronje in the Vojvodina (Serbia). Societa per laPreistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Quaderno 10. Trieste.

KENYON, K. 1961 – Beginning in archaeology (2nd ed.). Phoenix House, London.

KERTÉSZ, R. 1996 – The Mesolithic in the Great Hungarian Plain: A Survey of the Evidence. In TÁLAS, L. (ed.) At thefringes of three worlds. Hunter-gatherers and farmers in the Middle Tisza Valley: 5-34. Szolnok.

KERTÉSZ, R. 2003 – The Palaeolithikum and the Mesolithikum. In GRAMMENOS, D.V. (ed.) Recent research in theprehistory of the Balkans. Publications of the Archaeological Institute of northern Greece, 3: 490-494. Thessaloniki.

KERTÉSZ, R. and SÜMEGI, P. 2001 – Theories, critiques and a model: why did the expansion of the Körös-Starèevo culturestop in the centre of the Carpathian Basin? In KERTÉSZ, R. and MAKKAY, J. (eds.) From the Mesolithic to theNeolithic. Proceedings of the International Archaeological Conference held in the Damjanich Museum of Szolnok,September 22-27, 1996. Archaeolingua, 11: 225-246. Budapest.

KOREK, J. 1966-1967 – Die Linearkeramik auf dem Alföld. A Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve, 1966/67: 13-20. Szeged.

KOREK, J. 1977 – Die frühe und mittlere Phase des Neolithikums auf dem Theissrücken. Acta Archaeologica AcademiaeScientiarum Hungaricae, 29: 3-52. Budapest.

KOSSE, K. 1979 – Settlement Ecology of the Körös and Linear Pottery Cultures in Hungary. BAR, International Series, 64.Oxford.

KOZ£OWSKI, S.K. 2001 – Eco-Cultural/Stylistic Zonation of the Mesolithic/Epipalaeolithic in Central Europe. In KERTÉSZ,

R. and MAKKAY, J. (eds.) From the Mesolithic to the Neolithic. Proceedings of the International ArchaeologicalConference held in the Damjanich Museum of Szolnok, September 22-27, 1996. Archaeolingua, 11: 261-282.Budapest.

KRECSMARIK, E. 1915 – Õskori nyomok Szarvas területén s a szappanosi neolit-korú telep [Prehistoric remains on theterritory of Szarvas, and the Neolithic settlement at Szarvas-Szappanos]. Szarvas.

KRECSMARIK, E. 1915a – A békésszarvasi õstelepek [Prehistoric settlements in the area of Szarvas]. ArchaeologiaiÉrtesítõ, 35: 11-44. Budapest.

KUTZIÁN, I. 1944 – A Körös-kultúra. Dissertationes Pannonicae II, 23. Budapest.

KUTZIÁN, I. 1947 – The Körös Culture. Dissertationes Pannonicae II, 23. Budapest.

– 277

LAZAROVICI, C.M. 2003 – Pre-writing signs on Neo-Eneolithic altars. In NIKOLOVA, L. (ed.) Early symbolic systems forcommunication in Southeast Europe. BAR, International Series, 1139 (1): 85-96. Oxford.

LAZAROVICI, GH. and LAZAROVICI, M. 2003 – The Neo-Eneolithic architecture in the Banat, Transylvania and Moldavia. In GRAMMENOS, D.V. (ed.) Recent research in the prehistory of the Balkans. Publications of the ArchaeologicalInstitute of northern Greece, 3: 369-486. Thessaloniki.

LAZAROVICI, GH. and MAXIM, Z. 1995 – Gura Baciului. Monografie Archeologica, Biblioteca Musei Napocensis, XI.Cluj-Napoca.

LEBLANC, S.A. 2003 – Prehistory of warfare. Archaeology, 56 (3): 18-25.

LEKOVIÆ, V. 1985 – The Starèevo Mortuary Practices – New Perspectives. Godišnjak Cetra za balkanološka ispitivanjaAkademije nauka I umjetnosti Bosne I Hercegovine, 23:157-172. Sarajevo.

LENNEIS, E. 2004 – Erste Anzeichen der Regionalisierung sowie Nachweise von Fernkontaktenin der älterenLinearbandkeramik. Antaeus, 27: 47-57. Budapest.

LIPTÁK, P. 1975 – Neolitikus csontvázmaradványok Deszk mellett [Neolithische Knochenreste bei Deszk]. A Móra FerencMúzeum Évkönyve,1974-75/1: 311-315. Szeged.

LOSITS, F. 1983 – Dévaványa-Barcéi kishalom. Régészeti Füzetek, I (36): 11. Budapest.

MAKKAY, J. 1963 – Könyvszemle [review of ]: V. MILOJÈIÆ: Ergebnisse der Deutschen Ausgrabungen in Thessalien(1953-1958). Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 6, 1959: 1-56. Antik Tanulmányok, X(1-2): 89-91.

MAKKAY, J. 1963a – Adatok a péceli (badeni) kultúra népe vallásos elképzeléseihez [Data to the religious beliefs of thePécel (Baden) culture]. Archaeologiai Értesítõ, 90: 3-15. Budapest.

MAKKAY, J. 1965 – Die wichtigsten Fragen der Körös-Starèevo Periode. Acta Antiqua et Archaeologica, 8: 3-18. Szeged.

MAKKAY, J. 1969 – Zur Geschichte der Erforschung der Körös-Starèevo-Kultur und einigen ihrer wichtigsten Probleme.Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 21: 13-31. Budapest.

MAKKAY, J. 1974 – «Das frühe Neolithikum auf der Otzaki magula» und die Körös–Starèevo-Kultur. Acta ArchaeologicaAcademiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 26: 131-154. Budapest.

MAKKAY, J. 1975 – Über neolithische Opferformen. In ANATI, E. (ed.) Les réligions de la préhistoire. Actes duValcamonica Symposium 1972, 18-23 Septembre 1972: 161-172. Centro Camuno di Studi Preistorici. Capo di Ponte(Brescia).

MAKKAY, J. 1975a – Szarvas-Egyházföld. Régészeti Füzetek, I (28): 21-22. Budapest.

MAKKAY, J. 1976 – Szarvas-Szappanos. Régészeti Füzetek, I (29): 16. Budapest.

MAKKAY, J. 1978 – Review of GIMBUTAS, M. (ed.) Neolithic Macedonia as reflected by excavations at Anza, SoutheastYugoslavia. Los Angeles, 1976. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 30: 445-448. Budapest.

MAKKAY, J. 1978a – Excavations at Bicske, part I. The Early Neolithic. The Earliest Linear Band Ceramic. Alba Regia, 16:9-60. Székesfehérvár.

MAKKAY, J. 1979 – A magyarországi neolithikum rendszere és fejlõdésének fõbb vonásai [The chronology and settlementpatterns of the Hungarian Neolithic]. Dissertation for the Academy candidate’s degree. Budapest (manuscript).

MAKKAY, J. 1979a – Mahlstein und das rituale Mahlen in den prähistorischen Opferzeremonien. Acta ArchaeologicaAcademiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 30: 13-36. Budapest.

MAKKAY, J. 1980 – Endrõd, Szujókereszt. Mitteilungen des Archäologischen Instituts der Ungarischen Akademie derWissenschaften, 8-9 (1981): 209-213. Budapest.

MAKKAY, J. 1980a – Szarvas, 23. Egyházföld. Régészeti Füzetek, I (33): 21. Budapest.

MAKKAY, J. 1981 – Painted pottery of the Körös-Starèevo-culture from Szarvas, site no. 23. Acta ArchaeologicaCarpathica, 21: 95-103. Kraków.

MAKKAY, J. 1982a – Some comments on the settlement patterns of the Alföld Linear pottery. In PAVÚK J. (ed.) Siedlungender Kultur mit Linearkeramik in Europa, Internationales Kolloquium, Nové Vozokany 1981: 157-166. SlovakianAcademy of Sciences, Nitra.

278 –

MAKKAY, J. 1982b – A magyarországi neolitikum kutatásának új eredménye. Az idõrend és a népi azonosítás kérdései [New results in the research of the Hungarian Neolithic]. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest.

MAKKAY, J. 1982c – Eine Kultstätte der Bodrogkeresztúr-Kultur in Szarvas und Fragen der sakralen Hügel. Mitteilungendes Archäologischen Instituts der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 10-11: 45-57. Budapest.

MAKKAY, J. 1983 – Foundation sacrifices in Neolithic houses of the Carpathian Basin. In Proceedings of the IIIValcamonica Symposium the Intellectual Expressions of Prehistoric Man: Art and Religion, Capo di Ponte (Brescia) 28 July – 3 August 1979:157-167. Centro Camuno di Studi Preistorici, Capo di Ponte (Brescia).

MAKKAY, J. 1984 – Early stamp seals in South-East Europe. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest.

MAKKAY, J. 1984a – Chronological links between Neolithic cultures of Thessaly and the Middle Danube region. In B‘

DIEQNES SUNEDRIOY QESSALIKWN SPOUDWN, 17-21 Sept. 1980, Praktika: 47-57. Athens.

MAKKAY, J. 1984b – Chronological links between Neolithic cultures of Thessaly and the Middle Danube region. ActaArchaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 36: 21-28. Budapest.

MAKKAY, J. 1986 – Bauopfer in der Lengyel-Kultur und seine Beziehungen zu den Bauopferformen der Körös-Kultur undder Linienbandkeramik. In Proceedings of the Internationales Symposium über die Lengyel-Kultur, Nové Vozokany1984: 169-175. Nitra-Wien.

MAKKAY, J. 1986a – 15/3. Gyomaenrõd-6 lelõhely. Régészeti Füzetek, I (39): 11. Budapest.

MAKKAY, J. 1987 – Kontakte zwischen der Körös-Starèevo-Kultur und der Linienbandkeramik. CommunicationesArchaeologicae Hungariae, 1987: 15-24. Budapest.

MAKKAY, J. 1987a – Endrõd 119. Régészeti Füzetek, I (40): 13. Budapest.

MAKKAY, J. 1987b – The Linear pottery and the Early Indoeuropeans. In NACEV-SKOMAL, S. and POLOMÉ, E. (eds.)Proto-Indo-European: the archaeology of a linguistic problem. Studies in honor of Marija Gimbutas: 165-184. TheInstitute for the Study of Man, Washington DC.

MAKKAY, J. 1988 – Angaben zur Archäologie der Indogermanenfrage, II-IV. – II. Opferpfosten in Gebäuden undOpfergaben in oder neben Pfostenlöchern. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 40: 3-25.Budapest.

MAKKAY, J. 1988a – Weitere neolithische Felidendarstellungen aus Südosteuropa. Germania, 66 (1): 135-143.

MAKKAY, J. (ed.) 1989 – Bevezetés (Introduction) In Békés Megye Régészeti Topográfiája. 2 a Szarvasi járás.Magyarország Régészeti Topográfiája, 8: 9-34. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest.

MAKKAY, J. 1989a – Zwei neuere Opfergruben der Körös-Starèevo-Kultur. Bylany Seminar 1987. Collected Papers:243-248. Praha.

MAKKAY, J. 1990 – The Protovinèa problem – as seen from the northernmost frontier. In SREJOVIÆ, D. and TASIÆ, N. (eds.)Vinèa and its World. Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Symposia, LI: 113-122. Beograd.

MAKKAY, J. 1990a – Knochen-, Geweich- und Eberzahngegenstände der frühneolithischen Körös-Kultur.Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae, 1996: 23-58. Budapest.

MAKKAY, J. 1991 – Entstehung, Blüte und Ende der Theiß-Kultur. In LICHARDUS, J. (ed.) Die Kupferzeit als historischeEpoche, I-II: 319-328. Habelt, Bonn.

MAKKAY, J. 1992 – Excavation at the Körös culture settlement of Endrõd – Öregszõlõk 119 in 1986-1989. In BÖKÖNYI, S.(ed.) Cultural and landscape changes in South-East Hungary, I. Reports of the Gyomaendrõd project.Archaeolingua, 1: 121-193. Budapest.

MAKKAY, J. 1992a – Angaben zur Archäologie der Indogermanenfrage, V. Funerary sacrifices of the Yamna-complex andtheir Anatolian (Hittite) and Aegean (Mycenaean and Homeric) parallels. Acta Archaeologica AcademiaeScientiarum Hungaricae, 44: 213-237. Budapest.

MAKKAY, J. 1992b – A Linear Pottery culture refuse pit and two contracted burials from the site of Endrõd-Öregszõlõk XI.In BÖKÖNYI, S. (ed.) Cultural and landscape changes in South-East Hungary, I. Reports of the Gyomaendrõdproject. Archaeolingua, 1: 313-336. Budapest.

MAKKAY, J. 1992c – A Neolithic model of Indo-European prehistory. Journal of Indoeuropean Studies, 20: 193-238.Washington.

– 279

MAKKAY, J. 1993 – Eine prachtvolle Frauenfigur der Körös–Starèevo-Kultur. In NIKOLOV, V. (ed.) Prähistorische Fundeund Forschungen, Festschrift zum Gedenken an Prof. Georgi I. Georgiev: 73-78. Bulgarische Akademie derWissenschaften, Archäologisches Institut mit Museum, Abteilung Vorgeschichte, Sofia.

MAKKAY, J. 1993a – Pottery links between Late Neolithic cultures of the NW Pontic and Anatolia, and the origins of theHittites. Anatolica, 19: 117-128.

MAKKAY, J. 1994 – M. Gimbutas: The language of the Goddess. Unearthing the hidden symbols of Western Civilization.London, 1989. In: Discussio. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 46: 419-425. Budapest.

MAKKAY, J. 1995 – Horses, nomads and invasions from the steppe from an Indo-European perspective. In GENITO, B. (ed.)The Archaeology of the Steppes. Methods and Strategies. Papers from the International Symposium held in Naples9-12 November 1992. Istituto Universitario Orientale, Dipartimento di Studi Asiatici, Series Minor, XLIV(1994):149-165. Napoli.

MAKKAY, J. 1996 – Theories about the origin, the distribution and the end of the Körös culture. In TÁLAS, L. (ed.) At thefringes of three worlds. Hunter-gatherers and farmers in the Middle Tisza Valley: 35-49. Szolnok.

MAKKAY, J. 1996a – Mycenaean burial sacrifices and the origins of the Protogreeks. In DE MIRO, E., GODART, L. andSACCONI, A. (eds.) Atti e Memorie del Secondo Congresso Internazionale di Micenologia, Roma-Napoli, 14-20ottobre 1991. Incunabula Graeca, 98 (2), Storia: 775-784. Rome.

MAKKAY, J. 1996b – The formation of pastoral economy in the Carpathian Basin. In The Colloquia of the XIII. International Congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences, Forli, Italia, 8-14 September 1996, vol. 16: The prehistory ofAsia and Oceania: 121-131. ABACO, Forli.

MAKKAY, J. 1997 – Clay spindle whorls of the Körös culture and the technology of their perforation. In LAZIÆ, M. (ed.)Antidóron. Completis LXV annis Dragoslavo Srejoviæ ab amicis collegis discipulus oblatum. Centre forArchaeological research, University of Belgrade, Faculty of Philosophy: 115-122. Beograd.

MAKKAY, J. 1997a – Copper and gold in the Copper Age of the Carpathian Basin. In KOVÁCS, T. (ed.) Studien zurMetallindustrie im Karpatenbecken und den benachbarten Regionen. Festschrift für Amália Mozsolics zum 85.Geburtstag: 37-53. Hungarian National Museum, Budapest.

MAKKAY, J. 1997b – C-14 chronology: Eastern Europe. In RANDSBORG, K. (ed.) Absolute Chronology. ArchaeologicalEurope 2500-500 BC. Acta Archaeologica, Supplementum, 1 (1996): 219-225. Munksgaard, Köbenhavn.

MAKKAY, J. 1999 – Culture neolitiche della Pannonia e relazioni con l’Italia: una vecchia teoria in una nuova prospettiva. InLa neolitizzazione tra oriente ed occidente. Pre-prints, Convegno di Studi, Udine, 23-24 aprile 1999: 26.

MAKKAY, J. 1999a – I primi agricoltori dell’Europa sud-orientale e il Neolitico del Bacino dei Carpazi. In PESSINA, A. andMUSCIO, G. (eds.) Settemila Anni fa: il primo pane. Ambienti e culture delle societa neolitiche: 35-54. MuseoFriulano di Storia Naturale, Udine.

MAKKAY, J. 1999b – Kõkori cigánytelep a szocializmus virágkorában [A Stone-age gypsy settlement at the height ofSocialism]. Tractata Minuscola, 21. Published by the author, Budapest.

MAKKAY, J. 1999c – Néhány õstörténeti kérdés Torma Zsófia és H. Schliemann levélváltása kapcsán [Some prehistoricquestion as reflected by the correspondence of Zsófia Torma with Heinrich Schliemann]. The modified’Dimini-Wanderung’ theory. In MAKKAY, J. (ed.) Holt lóra patkó. Tanulmányok Torma Zsófia (1840-1899)emlékezetére: 81-133. Budapest.

MAKKAY, J. 2000 – Bisher unbeachtete Verzierungen der Feinkeramik der Körös-Kultur. In HILLER, S. and NIKOLOV, V.(eds.) Karanovo III. Beiträge zum Neolithikum in Südosteuropa: 311-325. Phoibos Verlag, Wien.

MAKKAY, J. 2000a – Neolithic cultures in Pannonia and their relations with Italy. An old theory in a new perspective. InPESSINA, A. and MUSCIO, G. (eds.) La Neolitizzazione tra Oriente e Occidente: 23-50. Museo Friulano di StoriaNaturale, Udine.

MAKKAY, J. 2000b – Egy õsi háború. Az estergály horváti késõ eolitikus tömegsír [An early war. The Late Neolithic massgrave from Esztergályhorváti]. Tractata Minuscola, 19. Published by the author, Budapest.

MAKKAY, J. 2001 – Neolithic prelude to the Indo-Europeanization of Italy. An old theory in a new perspective. TractataMinuscola, 26. Published by the author, Budapest.

MAKKAY, J. 2001a – A Jászság-határ és az indoeurópai õstörténet: régészeti tények és nyelvtörténeti vonatkozásaik [TheJászság border and its role in the Indo-European prehistory: archaeological facts and their linguistic applications].Tisicum, A Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok Megyei Múzeumok Évkönyve, 12: 57-78. Damjanich János Museum, Szolnok.

280 –

MAKKAY, J. 2001b – Vessels of the Körös culture with perforated base. In GINTER, B., DROBNIEWICZ, B., KACZIOR, B.,NOWAK, M., and PO£TOWICZ, M. (eds.) Problems of the Stone Age in the Old World. Jubilee Book dedicated toProfessor Janusz K. Koz³owski: 281-288. Kraków.

MAKKAY, J. 2001c – Textile impressions and related finds of the Early Neolithic Körös culture in Hungary. With anAppendix: The ritual spinning. Tractata Minuscola, 27. Published by the author, Budapest.

MAKKAY, J. 2001d – Die Grabenanlagen im indogermanischen Raum. Published by the author, Budapest.

MAKKAY, J. 2002 – Ein Opferfund der frühneolithischen Körös-Kultur mit einem Gefäß mit Schlangendarstellung.Archeologické rozhledy, 54 (1): 202-207. Praha.

MAKKAY, J. 2002a – Comments on C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky: Archaeology and Language. The Indo-Iranians. CurrentAnthropology, 43 (1): 78-79.

MAKKAY, J. 2003 – Prehistoric archaeology in Hungary in recent years. In GRAMMENOS, D.V. (ed.) Recent research in theprehistory of the Balkans. Publications of the Archaeological Institute of Northern Greece, 3: 487-537. Thessaloniki.

MAKKAY, J. 2003a – Méhteleki kutatások [Researches at Méhtelek]. Jósa András Museum, Nyíregyháza.

MAKKAY, J. 2003b – Kõkori régiségek a vállaji határban [Prehistoric antiquities from the territory of the village Vállaj].Jósa András Múzeum, Nyíregyháza.

MAKKAY, J. 2003c – The origins of the Proto-Greeks and Proto-Anatolians from a common perspective. TractataMinuscola, 34. Published by the author, Budapest.

MAKKAY, J. 2004 – Vésztõ-Mágor. Munkácsy Mihály Museum, Békéscsaba.

MAKKAY, J. 2004a – Õsrégészeti kutatások Magyarországon az utóbbi években. Az újkõkor és a rézkor. A Nyíregházi JósaAndrás Múzeum Évkönyve, 45: 27-63. Nyíregyháza.

MAKKAY, J. 2004b – Tellek, tételek, istenek [Tells, arguments, gods]. Tractata Minuscola, 38. Published by the author,Budapest.

MAKKAY, J. 2005 – Supplement to the Early Stamp Seals in South-East Europe. Tractata Minuscola, 44. Published by theauthor, Budapest.

MAKKAY, J. 2005a – Újkõkori teogónia. Agyagból mintázni istent és embert. [ Neolithic theogony. Clay images of gods andmen]. In Hétköznapok Vénuszai: 85-121. Tornyai János Múzeum, Hódmezõvásárhely.

MAKKAY, J. and IERCOSAN, N. 1995 – Idoli din lut [Clay figurines]. Satu Mare-Nyíregyháza (manuscript).

MAKKAY, J. and STARNINI, E. forthcoming 2 – The pottery assemblage. The excavations of the Early Neolithic sites of theKörös Culture in the Körös Valley, Hungary: The final report, volume II. Societa per la Preistoria e Protostoria dellaRegione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Quaderno. Trieste.

MAKKAY, J. and STARNINI, E. forthcoming 3 – Clay figurines, altars-lamps, netweights and fired clay artefacts. Theexcavations of the Early Neolithic sites of the Körös Culture in the Körös Valley, Hungary: The final report, volumeIII, Societa per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Quaderno 13. Trieste.

MAKKAY, J., STARNINI, E and TULOK, M. 1996 – Excavations at Bicske-Galagonyás, part III. The Notenkopf andSopot-Bicske cultural phases. Societa per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Quaderno6. Trieste.

MAKKAY, J. and TROGMAYER, O. 1966 – Die bemalte Keramik der Körös-Gruppe. A Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve,1964-1965, 1: 47-58. Szeged.

MAKKAY, J. and TULOK, M. 1996c – The internal chronology of the site. In MAKKAY, J., STARNINI, E. and TULOK, M.(eds.) Excavations at Bicske-Galagonyás, part III. The Notenkopf and Sopot-Bicske cultural phases. Societa per laPreistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Quaderno 6: 264-271. Trieste.

MAXIM, Z. 1999 – Neo-Eneoliticul din Transilvania. Biblioteca Musei Napocensis, XIX. Cluj-Napoca.

MELLAART, J. 1967 – Çatal Hüyük. A Neolithic town in Anatolia. Thames & Hudson, London.

MENDÖL, T. 1928 – Szarvas földrajza [The geography of Szarvas]. The Debrecen University, Debrecen.

MILOJÈIÆ VON ZUMBUSCH, J. and MILOJÈIÆ, V. 1971 – Die Deutschen Ausgrabungen auf der Otzaki-Magula in Thessalien I. Das frühe Neolithikum. BAM, 11-12. Habelt, Bonn.

– 281

MINICHREITER, K. 1999 – Ranoneolitièki ukopi i pogrebni obièaji u naseljima starèevaèkog kulturnog kompleksa [EarlyNeolithic Burials and Funerary Customs in Settlements of the Starèevo Culture Complex]. Prilozi Instituta zaarheologiju u Zagrebu,15-16 (1998-1999): 5-20. Zagreb.

MRT8 1989 = JANKOVICH, D., MAKKAY, J. and SZÕKE, B. M. (eds.) Békés Megye Régészeti Topográfiája. 2 a Szarvasijárás. Magyarország Régészeti Topográfiája, 8. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest.

MRT10 1998 = JANKOVICH, D., MEDGYESI, P., NIKOLIN, E., SZATMÁRY, I. and TORMA, I. (eds.) Békés Megye RégészetiTopográfiája. IV/3 Békés és Békéscsaba Környéke. Magyarország Régészeti Topográfiája, 10. Akadémiai Kiadó,Budapest.

NAGY, E. 2000 – Siklós területének története a magyar honfoglalásig. Régészeti emlékek [The early history of the town ofSiklós before the Hungarian Conquest: the archaeological remains]. In Város a Tenkes alján. Siklós évszázadai:31-54. Siklós.

NANDRIS, J. 1972 – Bos primigenius and the bone spoon. Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology, 10: 63-81. London.

NIKOLOV, V. 2002 – Rannoneolitna risuvana ornamentacija [Frühneolithische bemalte Ornamentik]. Sofia.

NIKOLOV, V. and SIRAKOVA, E. 2002 – Zwei frühneolithische Wohnhäuser aus Slatina-Sofia. In LICHARUS-ITTEN, M.,LICHARDUS, J. and NIKOLOV, V. (eds.) Beiträge zu jungsteinzeitlichen Forschungen in Bulgarien. SaarbrückerBeiträge zur Altertumskunde, 74: 165-189. Bonn.

ORAVECZ, H. 1997 – Dévaványa-Barcéi kishalom. A Körös kultúra fiatalabb (Protovinèa) szakaszának telepe éstemetkezése [Late Körös-Protovinèa – Settlement and Burial at Dévaványa-Barcéi Kishalom]. CommunicationesArchaeologicae Hungariae, 1997: 5-25. Budapest.

ORAVECZ, H. 2000 – Középsõ újkõkori temetkezések Tiszaföldváron [Middle Neolithic burials at Tiszaföldvár]. FoliaArchaeologica, 47: 43-62. Budapest.

O’SHEA, J. 1993 – BÖKÖNYI, S. (ed.) Cultural and landscape changes in South-East Hungary, I. Reports of theGyomaendrõd project. Archaeolingua, 1. Book review. Antiquity, 67: 932-933.

ÖZDOÐAN, M. 1999 – Northwestern Turkey: Neolithic cultures in between the Balkans and Anatolia. In ÖZDOÐAN, M. andBAªGELEN, E. (eds.) Neolithic in Turkey. The craddle of civilization, New Discoveries. Text: 201-224, Plates:169-194. Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayýnlarý, Istanbul.

ÖZDOÐAN, M. 2003 – The prehistory of Northwestern Turkey. In GRAMMENOS, D.V. (ed.) Recent research in theprehistory of the Balkans. Publications of the Archaeological Institute of Northern Greece, 3: 329-368. Thessaloniki.

PALUCH, T. 2004 – A Körös-Starèevo kultúra temetkezései. A Nyíregházi Jósa András Múzeum Évkönyve, 46: 23-47.Nyíregyháza.

PARKINSON, W. A. 1999 – The social organization of Early Copper Age tribes on the Great Hungarian Plain. PhDdissertation. Museum of Anthropology. University of Michigan, Ann Arbour, Michigan.

PÃUNESCU, A. 1987 – Les industries lithiques du Néolithique ancien de la Roumanie et quelques considérations surl’inventaire lithique des cultures du Néolithique moyen de cette cointrée. In KOZ£OWSKI, J.K.and KOZ£OWSKI, S.K.(eds.) Chipped Stone Industries of the early Farming Cultures in Europe. Archaeologia Interregionalis: 75-94.Kraków.

PELEGRIN, J. 1991 – Sur une recherche technique expérimentale des techniques de débitage laminaire et quelques résultats.In Archéologie expérimentale. Tome 2: La terre, l’os et la pierre, la maison et les champs. Actes du colloqueinternational “Expérimentation en archéologie: bilan et perspective”, Archéologie aujourd’hui: 118-128. EditionsErrances, Paris.

PERLES, C. 2001 – The Early Neolithic of Greece. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

PETER-RÖCHER, H. 2002 – Krieg und Gewalt: Zu den Kopfdepositionen in der Großen Ofnet und der Diskussion umkriegerische Konflikte. Prähistorische Zeitschrift, 77: 1-28.

PETRU, S. and BUDJA, M. 2003 – Review of Slovenian prehistory. In GRAMMENOS, D.V. (ed.) Recent research in theprehistory of the Balkans. Publications of the Archaeological Institute of Northern Greece, 3: 177-204. Thessaloniki.

POLOMÉ, E.C. 1986 – Some comments on Germano-Hellenic lexical correspondences. In ALINEI, M. and °ARHAMMAR N.(eds.) Aspects of languages. Studies in honour of Mario Alinei. 1: Geolinguistics, Atlas Linguarum Europae:171-198. Rodopi, Amsterdam.

282 –

POTUSHNIAK, M.F. 1985 – Neolit Zakarpatia: kul’turi Kris i raspisnoi keramiki. In Arheologija Ukrainskoj SSR: 140-141.Naukova Dumka, Kiev.

POTUSHNIAK, M. 2004 – Data to the question of the Starèevo/Körös Culture dwellings in the Upper Tisza Region. ANyíregházi Jósa András Múzeum Évkönyve, 46: 53-69. Nyíregyháza.

RACZKY, P. 1977 – Szajol-Felsõföld. Régészeti Füzetek, I (30): 12. Budapest.

RACZKY, P. 1980 – A Körös kultúra újabb figurális ábrázolásai a Közép-Tiszavidékrõl és történeti összefüggéseik [Newfigural representations of the Körös Culture from the Middle Tisza Region and their historical connections]. ASzolnok Megyei Múzeumok Évkönyve, 1979-1980: 5-33. Szolnok.

RACZKY, P. 1982 – A házba való temetkezés szokásának kezdetei Délkelet- Európában [Origins of the Custom of Buryingthe Dead Inside Houses in South-East Europe]. In HOPPÁL, M. and NOVÁK, L. (eds.) Elõmunkálatok a MagyarságNéprajzához, 10: 17-26. Institute of Ethnography, Budapest.

RACZKY, P. 1983 – A korai neolitikumból a középsõ neolitikumba való átmenet a Közep-és Felsõ-Tiszavidéken [Questionsof transition between the Early and Middle Neolithic in the Middle and Upper Tisza region]. Archaeologiai Értesítõ,110: 161-194. Budapest.

RACZKY, P. 1988 – A Tisza-vidék kulturális és kronológiai kapcsolatai a Balkánnal és az Égeikummal a neolitikum, rézkoridõszakában [Cultural and chronological interrelations of the Tisza-area with the Balkans and the Aegean World inthe Neolithic, Copper Ages]. Damjanich János Museum, Szolnok.

RACZKY, P. 1995 – New data on the absolute chronology of the Copper Age in the Carpathian Basin. In KOVÁCS, T. (ed.)Neuere Daten zur Siedlungsgeschichte und Chronologie der Kupferzeit des Karpathenbeckens. InventariaPraehistorica Hungariae, VII: 51-61. Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum, Budapest.

RADOVANOVIÆ, I., KACZANOWSKA, M., KOZ£OWSKI, J.K., PAWLIKOWSKI, M. and VOYTEK, B. 1984 – The chipped stoneindustry from Vinèa, excavations 1929-1934. Centar za arheološka istraživanja Filozofskog fakulteta u Beogradu,Beograd.

RENFREW, C. 1999 – Time depth, convergence theory, and innovation in Proto-Indo-European: ’Old Europe’ as a PIElinguistic area. Journal of Indoeuropean Studies, 27: 258-293.

SCHUBERT, H. 1999 – Die bemalte Keramik des Frühneolithikums in Südosteuropa, Italien und Westanatolien.Internationale Archäologie, 47. Rahden,Westfalen.

SCHULZE, R. and SEIDEL, M. 1998 – Egypt. The World of the Pharaohs. Köln.

SHERRATT, A. 1982 – The development of Neolithic and Copper Age settlement in the Great Hungarian Plain, part I: Theregional setting. Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 1 (3): 287-316.

SHERRATT, A. 1983 – The development of Neolithic and Copper Age settlement in the Great Hungarian Plain, part II: Sitesurvey and settlement dynamics. Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 2 (1): 3-41. Oxford.

SHERRATT, A. 1983a – Early agrarian settlement in the Körös region of the Great Hungarian Plain. Acta ArchaeologicaAcademiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 35: 155-169. Budapest.

SIMOSKA, D. and SANEV, V. 1975 – Neolitska naselba Veluška Tumba kaj Bitola. Macedoniae Acta Archaeologica, 1:25-88. Skopje.

SOUDSKÝ, B. 1961 – Libenice. Sanctuaire celtique en Boheme Centrale. Prague.

SREJOVIÆ, D. 1969 – Lepenski Vir. Beograd.

STANCIU, J. 1998 – Über frühslawische Tonklumpen und Ton-“Brötchen”. Ephemeris Napocensis, 8: 215-272. Cluj.

STARNINI, E. 1993 – Typological and technological analyses of the Körös culture chipped, polished and ground-stoneassemblages of Méhtelek-Nádas (North-Eastern Hungary). Atti della Societa per la Preistoria e Protostoria dellaRegione Friuli Venezia-Giulia, VIII: 29-96. Trieste.

STARNINI, E. 1994 – Typological and technological analysis of the Körös culture stone assemblage of Méhtelek-Nádas andTiszacsege (North-East Hungary). A Nyíregházi Jósa András Múzeum Évkönyve, 36: 101-110. Nyíregyháza.

STARNINI, E. 2000 – Stone industries of the Early Neolithic cultures in Hungary and their relationships with the Mesolithicbackground. In BIAGI P. (ed.) Studi sul Paleolitico, Mesolitico e Neolitico del bacino dell’Adriatico in ricordo diAntonio M. Radmilli. Societa per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli Venezia-Giulia, Quaderno 8:207-219. Trieste.

– 283

STARNINI, E. 2001 – The Mesolithic/Neolithic transition in Hungary: the lithic perspective. In KERTÉSZ, R. and MAKKAY, J. (eds.) From the Mesolithic to the Neolithic. Proceedings of the International Archaeological Conference held in theDamjanich Museum of Szolnok, September 22-27, 1996. Archaeolingua, 11: 395-404. Budapest.

STARNINI, E. 2002 – La transizione mesolitico/neolitico in Ungheria: uno sguardo critico sullo stato della ricerca. InOmaggio a Santo Tiné. Miscellanea di studi di archeologia preistorica e protostorica. Pubblicazioni delD.AR.FI.CL.ET., 206: 173-190. Erredi Grafiche, Genova.

STARNINI, E. and SZAKMÁNY, GY. 1998 – The lithic industry of the Neolithic sites of Szarvas and Endrõd. ActaArchaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 50: 279-342. Budapest.

SÜMEGI, P. 2003 – Early Neolithic man and riparian environment in the Carpathian Basin. In JEREM, E. and RACZKY, P.(eds.) Morgenrot der Kulturen. Frühe Etappen der Mensshheitsgeschichte in Mittel- und Südosteuropa. Festschriftfür Nándor Kalicz zum 75. Geburtstag. Archaeolingua, 15: 53-60. Budapest.

SÜMEGI, P. 2004 – Environmental changes under the neolithization process in central Europe: before and after. Antaeus, 27:117-127. Budapest.

SÜMEGI, P. 2004a – Findings of geoarchaeological and environmental historical investigations at the Körös site ofTiszapüspöki-Karancspart Háromág. Antaeus, 27: 307-341. Budapest.

SÜMEGI, P. and KERTÉSZ, R. 2001 – Palaeogeographic characteristics of the Carpathian Basin - an ecological trap during theEarly Neolithic? In KERTÉSZ, R. and MAKKAY, J. (eds.) From the Mesolithic to the Neolithic. Proceedings of theInternational Archaeological Conference held in the Damjanich Museum of Szolnok, September 22-27, 1996.Archaeolingua, 11: 395-404. Budapest.

SZABÓ, J. J. 1977 – Battonya – Basarága, Laposéri csatorn. Régészeti Füzetek, Series I (3): 3. Budapest.

TASIÆ, N. 2003 – The white painted ornament of the Early and Middle Neolithic in the Central Balkans. In NIKOLOVA, L.(ed.) Early symbolic systems for communication in Southeast Europe. BAR, International Series, 1139 (1): 181-191.Oxford.

THISSEN, L. 2000 – Early Village Communities in Anatolia and the Balkans: Studies in Chronology and Culture Contact.Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation

TODOROVA, H. 2003 – Prehistory of Bulgaria. In. GRAMMENOS, D.V. (ed.) Recent research in the prehistory of the Balkans. Publications of the Archaeological Institute of Northern Greece, 3: 257-328. Thessaloniki.

TROGMAYER, O. 1964 – Megjegyzék a Körös-csoport relatív idõrendjéhez [Remarks to the relative chronology of the Körös group]. Archaeologiai Értesítõ, 91 (4): 67-86. Budapest.

TROGMAYER, O. 1966 – 19. Röszke-Lúdvár. Archaeologiai Értesítõ, 93 (3): 293. Budapest.

TROGMAYER, O. 1966a – A Körös csoport lakóházáról. Újkõkori házmodell-töredék Röszkerõl [On the dwelling of theKörös group]. Archaeologiai Értesítõ, 93 (3): 235-240. Budapest.

TROGMAYER, O. 1967 – Deszk, 1. sz. olajkút. Régészeti Füzetek, I (20): 10. Budapest.

TROGMAYER, O. 1968 – A Körös csoport barbotin kerámiájáról [The “barbotine” pottery of the Körös group].Archaeologiai Értesítõ, 95 (1): 6-12. Budapest.

TROGMAYER, O. 1968a – Ein Beitrag zur relativen Zeitstellung der älteren Linearkeramik. In CLAUS, M., HAARNAGEL, W.and RADDATZ, K. (eds.) Studien zur europäischen Vor- und Frühgeschichte. Jankuhn Festschrift: 5-9. Neumünster.

TROGMAYER, O. 1968b – Die Hauptfragen des Neolithikums der Ungarischen Südtiefebene. A Móra Ferenc MúzeumÉvkönyve, 1968: 11-19. Szeged.

TROGMAYER, O. 1968c – A Dél-Alföld korai neolitikumának fõbb kérdései [The main points of the Early Neolithic in thesouthern part of the Great Plain], vols. I-II. Dissertation for the candidate’s degree, unpublished manuscript. Szeged.

TROGMAYER, O. 1968d – Bemerkungen zur Chronologie des Frühneolithikums auf dem Süd-Alföld. A Móra FerencMúzeum Évkönyve, 1966-67, 2: 35-40. Szeged.

TROGMAYER, O. 1969 – Die Bestattungen der Körös-Gruppe. A Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve, 1969 (2): 5-15. Szeged.

TROGMAYER, O. 1971 – Körös Gruppe-Linienbandkeramik – A Körös csoport és vonaldíszes kerámia. Alba Regia, 12:71-76. Székesfehérvár.

TULOK, M. and MAKKAY, J. 1999 – Heinrich Schliemann-Ungarn-Zsófia Torma. Kontakte und Briefwechsel. InBOROFFKA, N. and udor SOROCEANU, T. (eds.) Transsilvanica. Archäologische Untersuchungen zur älteren

284 –

Geschichte des südöstlichen Mitteleuropa. Gedenkschrift für Kurt Horedt. Internationale Archäologie. Studiahonoraria, 7: 19-37. Rahden, Westfalen.

VADAY, A. and SZÕKE, B.M. 1983 – Szarmata temetõ és gepida sír Endrõd-Szujókereszten. CommunicationesArchaeologicae Hungariae, 1983: 79-132. Budapest.

VAN ANDEL, T.H. and RUNNELS, C.N. 1995 – The earliest farmers in Europe. Antiquity, 69: 481-500.

VAN BUREN, E.D. 1948 – Fish offerings in Ancient Mesopotamia. Iraq, 10: 101-121.

VAN BUREN, E.D. 1952 – Places of sacrifice (’Opferstätten’). Iraq, 14: 76-92.

VITELLI, K.D. 1993 – Franchthi Neolithic pottery. Vol. 1, Classification and Ceramic Phases 1 and 2. Excavations atFranchthi Cave, Greece, 8. Indiana University Press, Bloomington-Indianapolis.

VLASSA, N. 1966 – Die Criºkultur in Siebenbürgen. Acta Mvsei Napocensis, 3: 9-48. Cluj.

WHITTLE, A., BARTOSIEWICZ, L., BORIÆ, D., PETTITT, P. and RICHARDS, M. 2002 – In the beginning: new radiocarbondates for the Early Neolithic in Northern Serbia and South-East Hungary. Antaeus, 25: 63-117. Budapest.

YIOUNI, P. 1996 – The Early Neolithic pottery: Typology. In RODDEN, R.J. and WARLDE, K.A (eds.) Nea Nikomedeia I: theexcavation of an Early Neolithic Village in Northern Greece 1961-1964, The Excavation and the ceramicassemblage. The British School at Athens, Supplementary volume, 25: 81-180. London.

ZALAI-GAÁL, I. 1995 – Betrachtungen über die kultische Bedeutung des Hundes im mitteleuropäischen Neolithikum. ActaArchaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 46: 33-57. Budapest.

ZALAI-GAÁL, I. 2002 – Die Neolithische Gräbergruppe-B1 von Mórágy-Tûzkõdomb: I. Die Archäologischen Funde undBefunde. Wosinsky Mór Múzeum, Szekszárd-Saarbrücken.

ZILHÃO, J. 2003 – The Neolithic Transition in Portugal and the Role of Demic Diffusion in the Spread of Agriculture acrossWest Mediterranean Europe. In AMMERMAN, A.J. and BIAGI, P. (eds.) The Widening Harvest. The NeolithicTransition in Europe: Looking Back, Looking Forward. Archaeological Institute of America, Colloquia andConference Papers 6: 207-223. Boston, Massachusset.

ZOFFMANN, ZS. 1976 – Embertani ismereteink a Körös-Starèevo-Criº kultúra népességérõl [Anthropologische Kenntnisseüber die Bevölkerung der Körös-Starèevo-Criº-Kultur]. Archaeologiai Értesítõ, 103: 190-196. Budapest.

ZOFFMANN, ZS. 1986 – Neue anthropologische Funde der neolithischen Körös- und Theiß-Kultur aus Ostungarn. A MóraFerenc Múzeum Évkönyve, 1984-1985, 1: 39-64. Szeged.

ZOFFMANN, ZS. 1997 – A Körös kultúra kései szakaszának embertani lelete Dévaványa-Barcéi Kishalom lelõhelyrõl[Anthropological material from Dévaványa-Barcéi kishalom from the Early Neolithic Late Körös Culture].Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae, 1997: 26-30. Budapest.

ZOFFMANN, ZS. 2001 – Neolitikus és rézkori embertani leletek az Alföldrõl [Neolithische und kupferzeitliche anthropologischeFunde in der Tiefebene]. A Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve, Studia Archaeologica, VII: 23-42. Szeged.

– 285

Authors’ address

Ma³gorzata KaczanowskaJagellonian UniversityInstitute of Archaeologyul. Go³êbia 11Pl-31007 KrakówPoland

Janus Krzysztof Koz³owskiJagellonian UniversityInstitute of Archaeologyul. Go³êbia 11Pl-31007 Kraków [email protected]

János MakkayArchaeological InstituteHungarian Academy of SciencesÚri utca 49H-1014 [email protected]

Tibor PaluchMóra Ferenc MúzeumPf. 474 H-6701 [email protected]

Ildikó PapHungarian Natural History Museum, Embertani TárLudovika tér 2, VIII ker.H-1083 Budapest [email protected]

István VörösMagyar Nemzeti MúzeumMúzeum körút 14-16, VIII ker.H-1088 BudapestHungary