Méhtelek: The First Excavated Site of the Méhtelek Group of the Early Neolithic Körös Culture in the Carpathian Basin 9781407309040, 9781407338859

Citation preview

BAR S2321 2011

Central European Series 6 

Méhtelek The First Excavated Site of the Méhtelek Group of the Early Neolithic Körös Culture in the Carpathian Basin KALICZ

Nándor Kalicz With a contribution by Attila Kreiter and György Szakmány

MÉHTELEK

B A R

BAR International Series 2321 2011

Méhtelek The First Excavated Site of the Méhtelek Group of the Early Neolithic Körös Culture in the Carpathian Basin

Nándor Kalicz With a contribution by Attila Kreiter and György Szakmány

BAR International Series 2321 2011

Central European Series 6 

Méhtelek The First Excavated Site of the Méhtelek Group of the Early Neolithic Körös Culture in the Carpathian Basin

Nándor Kalicz With a contribution by Attila Kreiter and György Szakmány

BAR International Series 2321 2011

ISBN 9781407309040 paperback ISBN 9781407338859 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407309040 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR

PUBLISHING

Contents Foreword by Pál Raczky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . List of illustrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7 8 9

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 MAJOR MILESTONES IN HUNGARIAN EARLY NEOLITHIC RESEARCH DURING THE 20TH CENTURY . . . . 12 THE EXCAVATIONS AT MÉHTELEK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 THE SETTLEMENT FEATURES OF THE MÉHTELEK SITE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Pit 1–3/Į . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pit 4–5/Į . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pits 6/Į and 6/ȕ, location of Pit I Pit 7/Į . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pit 7/ ȕ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pit II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pit III . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

15 15 15 16 16 16 16

THE FINDS FROM MÉHTELEK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Pottery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . General traits of the pottery ¿nds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vessel forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Miniature conical bowls and large, straight-sided, deep bowls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Miniature cups and mugs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Small and medium sized bowls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cups, beakers, mugs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Flasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oval vessels and pannier shaped vessels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Large globular vessels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pedestals and vessel feet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pottery decoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Incised and impressed decoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Applied decoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Handles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Painted decoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figurines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oblong slab ¿gurines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Steatopygous ¿gurines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Main characteristics of the Méhtelek type and related oblong slab ¿gurines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The distribution of Méhtelek type oblong slab ¿gurines and related pieces in the Carpathian Basin and the Balkans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Steatopygous ¿gurines in the distribution of the Méhtelek group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anthropomorphic and anthropographic vessels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Miscellaneous small artefacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bone and antler artefacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bone spoon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Antler artefacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Antler sickle haft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Other ¿nds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lithics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Breakdown of lithic ¿nds according to settlement features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17 17 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 21 21 21 22 22 22 22 22 24 27

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

28 31 32 34 34 34 35 36 36 36 37

THE SETTLEMENTS AND THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE MÉHTELEK GROUP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Sites of the Méhtelek group Hungary . . . . . . . Romania . . . . . . . Ukraine . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

40 40 41 41

CHRONOLOGICAL POSITION OF THE MÉHTELEK GROUP IN THE EARLY NEOLITHIC OF THE CARPATHIAN BASIN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 ORIGINS OF THE MÉHTELEK GROUP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 ILLUSTRATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

APPENDIX Attila Kreiter – György Szakmány PETROGRAPHIC ANALYSIS OF KÖRÖS CERAMICS FROM MÉHTELEK–NÁDAS Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . Material and methods . . . . . . . Geological background . . . . . . Results of the petrographic analysis Comparisons and discussion . . . Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. 113 . 113 . 113 . 113 . 115 . 117 . 117

Foreword by Pál Raczky It is a special honour to have the privilege of introducing the publication of the ¿nds from an excavation in which I participated as a university student. The weeks spent at Méhtelek are among my most treasured memories, not least because I had the opportunity to work with and learn from two outstandingly brilliant archaeologists, whose intellectual co-operation during the investigation of the site was an inspiration to me. It is no understatement to claim that the excavations conducted by Nándor Kalicz and János Makkay at Méhtelek–Nádas in 1973 and the ¿ndings of their investigations created quite a stir in the archaeological world and in South-East European prehistoric studies. The Early Neolithic ¿nds, among them a remarkably rich corpus of clay ¿gurines, came to light at a site in the Upper Tisza region that lay 150 km north of the then assumed northern boundary of the Körös distribution. Nándor Kalicz and János Makkay presented the ¿nds from their excavation at an exhibition organised in the Jósa András Museum of Nyíregyháza in 1974.1 The ¿rst preliminary report of the excavation was soon published,2 and the terms Méhtelek-Fazies and Méhtelek-Gruppe became household words in the archaeological community. Sadly, their archaeological paths parted and the ¿nal report on the site and its ¿nds was no longer a priority. The rich inventory of chipped stone artefacts from the site was ¿rst examined by John Chapman3 and, later, by Elisabetta Starnini.4 The subsequent debates on the Méhtelek site and its signi¿cance drew their arguments from these preliminary studies. It came as a genuine surprise when, a few years ago, János Makkay published a description and a selection of the ¿nds from Méhtelek in a book detailing the excavations at fourteen Early and Middle Neolithic sites in the Alföld.5 The section on the Méhtelek settlement included also a discussion of the site’s broader cultural context and the related archaeological problems. Yet another surprise came when János Makkay broke the earlier co-operation with Elisabetta Starnini and Paolo Biagi, and came out with the sequel to the ¿rst volume, originally published in Italy. This book contained the pottery assemblages and the small ¿nds from the fourteen sites described in the ¿rst volume.6 Some confusion was caused by the fact that Volumes II and III were published as a single volume. While this publication lacks detailed descriptions, Figures 340–357 of Volume II provide a generous selection of the restored pottery vessels and other remarkable decorated ceramic ¿nds from Méhtelek. One de¿ciency of Volume I and Volumes II–III is the lack of detailed quantitative information on vessel forms and ornamental motifs, and it is therefore virtually impossible to form an even approximate picture of to what extent the published ¿nds are representative of the pottery brought to light at Méhtelek. This de¿ciency can in part be attributed to the fact that the detailed pottery analyses were performed by Elisabetta Starnini, but the results were not included in the published volume owing to the conÀict between the two scholars. Figures 31–33 of Volume III offer a selection of the highly stylised oblong slab ¿gurines and the other human ¿gurines and human depictions brought to light from the settlement’s features. In the light of the above, one need hardly stress the importance of the study published here: a detailed description of the excavations conducted at Méhtelek–Nádas in 1973, as well as of the uncovered settlement features and the ¿nds brought to light during the site’s investigation, together with a quantitative assessment of various artefact categories. The ¿nal chapters of the present volume discuss the site in its broader cultural context, with a discourse on the distribution of the Méhtelek group (currently represented by fourteen sites in Hungary, Romania and the Ukraine). Written by one of the best minds of Hungarian archaeology – who, on a more personal level, was to me a source of constant encouragement and professional guidance – this report is an outstanding contribution to the study of the South-East European Early Neolithic and will provide a solid foundation for further discussions. Pál Raczky Eötvös Loránd University Institute of Archaeological Sciences Budapest, December 10, 2011

Nándor Kalicz and János Makkay: A méhteleki agyagistenek (Clay gods from Méhtelek). Nyíregyháza 1974. Nándor Kalicz and János Makkay: Frühneolithische Siedlung in Méhtelek–Nádas (Vorbericht). Mitteilungen des Archäologischen Instituts der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 6 (1976), 13–24. 3 John Chapman: Technological and stylistic analysis of the Early Neolithic chipped stone assemblage from Méhtelek, Hungary. In Proceedings of the Ist International Conference on prehistoric Àint mining and lithic raw material identi¿cation in the Carpathian Basin. Ed. Katalin T. Bíró. Budapest 1987, 31–52. 4 Elisabetta Starnini: Typological and technological analyses of the Körös Culture chipped, polished and ground stone assemblages of Méhtelek–Nádas (Northeastern Hungary). Atti della societá per la preistoria e protoistoria della regione Friuli–Venezia Giulia 8 (1993), 29–96; Elisabetta Starnini: Typological and technological analysis of the Körös Culture stone assemblages of Méhtelek–Nádas and Tiszacsege (North-East Hungary). A preliminary report. A Nyíregyházi Jósa András Múzeum Évkönyve 36 (1994), 101–110. 5 János Makkay: The excavations of the Early Neolithic sites of the Körös culture in the Körös valley, Hungary. Vol. I. The excavations: stratigraphy, structures and graves. Società per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli–Venezia Giulia 11. Eds Elisabetta Starnini and Paolo Biagi. Trieste 2007. 6 János Makkay and Elisabetta Starnini: The excavations of Early Neolithic sites of the Körös culture in the Körös valley, Hungary: the ¿nal report. Vol. II. The pottery assemblages and Vol. III. The small ¿nds: ¿gurines, reliefs, face vessels, handled cups, altars, loomweights, netweights, and other small ¿nds. Budapest 2008. 1 2

7

Acknowledgements

My greatest debt of gratitude goes to István Dienes, the one-time director of the Jósa András Museum in Nyíregyháza, who generously provided the necessary funds for the excavation. Thanks are due to the Archaeological Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences for providing the necessary research background, and in particular to Ágnes Zamadics and Lucia Glattfelder, who performed the conservation and restoration of the ¿nds, as well as to Lajos Sugár and Miklós Hannos, who photographed the ¿nds. Special thanks go to Pál Raczky, still a student at the time, who participated in the excavation and drew the excavation plans. My gratitude is extended to Erzsébet Jerem, editor-in-chief of the Archaeolingua Publishing House, who secured the necessary funds for the publication, and to her staff for the conscientious editing work. Finally, I wish to thank the National Research Fund for generously providing the funds for the translation and publication.

8

List of illustrations

Fig. 1. Fig. 2. Fig. 3. Fig. 4. Fig. 5. Fig. 6. Fig. 7. Fig. 8. Fig. 9. Fig. 10. Fig. 11. Fig. 12. Fig. 13. Fig. 14. Fig. 15. Fig. 16. Fig. 17. Fig. 18. Fig. 19. Fig. 20. Fig. 21. Fig. 22. Fig. 23. Fig. 24. Fig. 25. Fig. 26. Fig. 27. Fig. 28. Fig. 29. Fig. 30. Fig. 31. Fig. 32. Fig. 33. Fig. 34. Fig. 35. Fig. 36. Fig. 37. Fig. 38. Fig. 39. Fig. 40. Fig. 41. Fig. 42. Fig. 43. Fig. 44. Fig. 45. Fig. 46. Fig. 47. Fig. 48. Fig. 49. Fig. 50. Fig. 51.

Sites of the Méhtelek group in the Carpathian Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Méhtelek. The site and the plan of the excavation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Méhtelek. The excavated features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Méhtelek. Slab ¿gurines from various features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Méhtelek. Intact and fragmentary slab ¿gurines from Pit 4–5/Į . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Méhtelek. Slab ¿gurines from various features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Méhtelek. Fragments of steatopygous ¿gurines from Pit 1–3/Į . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Méhtelek. Large steatopygous from Pit 4–5/Į . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Méhtelek. Fragments of steatopygous ¿gurines from Pit 4–5/Į . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Méhtelek. Fragments of steatopygous ¿gurines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Méhtelek type and related ¿gurines from the Carpathian Basin and the Balkans . . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of Méhtelek type and related ¿gurines in the Carpathian Basin and the Balkans . . . . . Méhtelek. Anthropomorphic vessels from Pits 4–5/Į and III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Méhtelek. Fragments of relief decorated anthropomorphic vessels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Méhtelek. Miscellaneous small artefacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Méhtelek. Vessel fragments, antler sickle haft and bone spoon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Méhtelek. Antler artefacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Méhtelek. Bone, boar tusk and antler artefacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Méhtelek. Plan of Pit 1–3/Į and vessels from the pit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Méhtelek. Conical, biconical and steep-sided bowls and pots from Pit 1–3/Į . . . . . . . . . . . . . Méhtelek. Conical bowls from Pit 1–3/Į . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Méhtelek. Fragments of wide-shouldered jars from Pit 1–3/Į . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Méhtelek. Fragments of wide-shouldered and high-necked jars from Pit 1–3/Į . . . . . . . . . . . . Méhtelek. Body fragments with knobs, lugs and handles from larger vessels from Pit 1–3/Į . . . . . Méhtelek. Body fragments with impressed knobs and fragments of footed vessels from Pit 1–3/Į . . Méhtelek. Fragments of vessels with pronounced base and foot-ring from Pit 1–3/Į . . . . . . . . . Méhtelek. Rim and body fragments with impressed decoration from Pit 1–3/Į . . . . . . . . . . . . Méhtelek. Plan and section of Pit 4–5/Į . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Méhtelek. Vessels from from Pit 4–5/Į . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Méhtelek. Conical and biconical bowls, and vessels with indrawn rim and steep sides from Pit 4–5/Į Méhtelek. Fragments of conical bowls from Pit 4–5/Į . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Méhtelek. Fragments of biconical bowls and bowls with indrawn rim from Pit 4–5/Į . . . . . . . . . Méhtelek. Rim and body fragments from pots with rounded or wide shoulder from Pit 4–5/Į . . . . . Méhtelek. Fragments of jars with cylindrical neck from Pit 4–5/Į . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Méhtelek. Vessel fragments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Méhtelek. Base fragment from Pit 4–5/Į . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Méhtelek. Rim and body fragments with impressed decoration from Pit 4–5/Į . . . . . . . . . . . . Méhtelek. Rim and body fragments with impressed decoration from Pit 4–5/Į . . . . . . . . . . . . Méhtelek. Rim and body fragments with impressed decoration from Pit 4–5/Į . . . . . . . . . . . . Méhtelek. Plan of Pits 6/Į and 6/ȕ and vessels from the pit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Méhtelek. Fragments of jars, bowls and vessel handles from Pits 6/Į and 6/ȕ . . . . . . . . . . . . . Méhtelek. Plan of Pit 7/Į and vessel fragments from the pit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Méhtelek. Vessel fragments from Pit 7/Į . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Méhtelek. Plan of Pits II and III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Méhtelek. Vessels from Pit III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Méhtelek. Vessel fragments from Pit III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Méhtelek. Rim and base fragments with impressed decoration from Pit III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Méhtelek. Rim and base fragments with impressed decoration from Pit III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Méhtelek. Restored vessels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Méhtelek. Restored vessels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Méhtelek. Restored vessels from Pit 4–5/Į . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105

Fig. 52. Fig. 53. Fig. 54. Fig. 55. Fig. 56. Fig. 57.

Méhtelek. Vessels with impressed decoration typical for the Méhtelek group . . . . . . . . Méhtelek. Bone and antler artefacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Méhtelek. Chipped stone tools and unworked raw material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Méhtelek. Unworked raw material, polished quern stones and hammer stones from Pit 4–5/Į Nagyecsed– Péterzúg. Surface ¿nds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Méhtelek type ¿gurine and vessels from Dyakovo/Gyakovo (Ukraine) . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. 106 . 107 . 108 . 109 . . 110 . . 111

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . 119 . 120 . 121 . 122 . 123 . 124 . 125 . 126 . 127 . 128 . 129

APPENDIX Fig. 1. Fig. 2. Fig. 3. Fig. 4. Fig. 5. Fig. 6. Fig. 7. Fig. 8. Fig. 9. Fig. 10. Fig. 11.

Geological map of Méhtelek and samples of Fabric I Samples of Fabric IIa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Samples of Fabric IIa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The fabric of Figurine 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Samples of Fabric IIb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Samples of Fabric IIb and IIc . . . . . . . . . . . . Samples of Fabric III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Samples of Fabric III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Samples of Fabric III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figurine fabrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Samples of Fabric IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction

Méhtelek lies in the easternmost corner of County SzabolcsSzatmár. The importance of this archaeological site is manifold. The ¿nds from the 1973 excavation and the fresh archaeological information provided by the site con¿rmed earlier speculations that the broader region had been part of the Early Neolithic world. The ¿nds enabled the separation of the Méhtelek group, a variant of the Körös culture of the Alföld (the Hungarian Plain), as well as the precise cultural and chronological attribution of several assemblages of stray ¿nds, which had earlier simply been classi¿ed as Neolithic, to the Méhtelek group of the Alföld Körös culture. Assemblages related to or identical with the ¿nds from Méhtelek came to light in the north-easterly region of the Alföld (principally in County Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg) and in the neighbouring regions of Romania and the Ukraine. Although the number of known sites is low, the currently known fourteen sites outline the boundaries of the group’s distribution. The number of sites will undoubtedly increase in the future. The distribution of the Méhtelek group extends across three modern states (Hungary, Romania and the Ukraine). The one-time landscape and environment was determined by the intricate network of watercourses and the extensive marshlands around them, whose remnants have survived to this day in the north-eastern Alföld. The assemblage from Méhtelek remains the group’s largest and most representative body of ¿nds. The pottery of the

Méhtelek group from the eponymous site is characterised by a blend of elements adopted from the Alföld Körös culture and of local ceramic traits. The number of ¿nds reÀecting the Méhtelek community’s religious beliefs is outstanding: in addition to the traditional steatopygous ¿gurines, the corpus of ritual ¿nds is made up of an astonishingly high number of oblong slab ¿gurines, one of the hallmarks of the Méhtelek group. The perhaps greatest signi¿cance of the excavation at Méhtelek was that it shed light on the cultural milieu of the Early Neolithic in the north-eastern Alföld, and that the region could now be ¿rmly placed on the Early Neolithic map of the Carpathian Basin and, in a broader sense, of South-East and Central Europe. The Méhtelek communities controlled the deposits of obsidian, the volcanic rock popular across Neolithic Europe. The group was engaged in the acquisition, the processing and the distribution of this popular lithic to Central and South-East Europe. Owing to various technical and other reasons, many decades have elapsed between the site’s excavation and the publication of the ¿nal report on the Méhtelek site and its ¿nds. No more than a few preliminary and incomplete reports have been published to date, some of them leading to misunderstandings and erroneous conclusions. The time was more than ripe for the publication of a ¿nal report. My work was greatly aided by Attila Kreiter and György Szakmány’s analysis of the ceramics.

11

Major milestones in Hungarian Early Neolithic research during the 20th century

the primacy of the Central European Linear Pottery in the emergence of the Hungarian Neolithic.5 The next major milestone is marked by the publication of Ida (Bognár-) Kutzián’s thesis in volume 23 of the Dissertationes Pannonicae series. The complete study appeared in 1944, followed by an abbreviated English version in 1947, which ensured that Hungarian Early Neolithic studies became part of the international mainstream. With her meticulous, systematic work, Kutzián placed her chosen subject in a broader geographic and cultural context, and ultimately challenged the outdated views of Tompa, her professor, who believed that the origins of the Early Neolithic in the Carpathian Basin lay in the Central European Linear Pottery. Kutzián convincingly proved that the roots of the Early Neolithic in Hungary should be sought in exactly the opposite direction, in the Aegean and the Balkans. To his credit, Tompa accepted Kutzián’s arguments (although surely through gritted teeth) and did not prevent the publication of her ¿ndings. Kutzián’s research provided a conclusive answer to one of the main issues in Neolithic studies in Hungary, namely the question of origins. Her main thesis has only been modi¿ed regarding smaller details. What remained to be answered is how the transition to the Neolithic took place in the remaining two-thirds of Hungary, especially in Transdanubia and in the north-eastern Alföld at the time when the Körös culture Àourished along the Tisza and in the southerly regions of eastern Hungary, where the Körös communities introduced a production economy and created a rich, prospering culture. This question was eventually answered in the mid1970s, when new excavations in southern Transdanubia proved beyond all doubt that the region had been settled by communities of the Early Neolithic Starþevo culture as in neighbouring Croatia and the Srem in Serbia.6 The excavations at Starþevo in the 1930s had furnished evidence that the Starþevo population was related to the Körös group despite the latter’s slightly differing life-style and material culture. Several issues still remained to be clari¿ed. The identity of the population living in the north-eastern Alföld (currently divided between three countries) during the Early Neolithic was unclear, even in the early 1970s. An answer to this question was ¿nally provided by the excavations at Méhtelek in 1973. No more than tentative hypotheses had been formulated regarding the Early Neolithic in the north-eastern Alföld previously. János Makkay and the present author had presented their research on the Alföld Linear Pottery (ALP) and the earliest Neolithic at an international conference held in Székesfehérvár in 1970, based on a series of stray ¿nds which

Systematic research on the Early Neolithic saw an upswing in southern Hungary during the 1930s. The construction of Àood embankments and railway lines across the country in the last third of the 19th century brought to light an immense number of ¿nd assemblages that were later assigned to the Early Neolithic. While these artefacts enriched the period’s museums, veritably founded by the dozen at the time, the period’s scholars had no inkling of the genuine age and chronological position of these ¿nds. Similar assemblages came to light during the many small-scale and more extensive excavations conducted during the early decades of the 20th century, often in regions lying far from each other, but their age still eluded prehistorians until the mid-1930s, despite the fact that János Banner’s excavations at HódmezĘvásárhely had led to the identi¿cation of the typical traits of the ¿nd assemblages that were later labelled the Körös culture, as well as to the recognition that they were the relics of an independent cultural unit. In the lack of an adequate stratigraphic context, Banner assigned the assemblages (which later turned out to represent the Early Neolithic) to Period III of the Tisza culture even as late as 1932, although he accurately described their distribution territory and characteristic traits.1 The breakthrough came in 1937, when Ferenc Tompa introduced the name Körös culture (Körösgruppe) and accurately determined its chronological position.2 In a seminal study written the same year, Banner acknowledged that his characterisation of the distinctive ¿nd assemblages as Period III of the Tisza culture was mistaken and that the error was principally due to the lack of stratigraphic data. He also claimed that he had decided on the name Körös group and Körös culture together with Tompa – the latter, being more accurate, eventually became the widely accepted of the two.3 The correct chronological positioning of the Körös culture was preceded by a study trip to Belgrade undertaken together with Tompa in 1936,4 where they familiarised themselves with the ¿nds and results of the investigations at Vinþa. Spanning several decades, the excavations at the Vinþa site revealed that over 9 m of the thick cultural deposits of the tell settlement represented the entire span of the Vinþa culture, while the lowermost features uncovered under the Vinþa deposits yielded ¿nds bearing a striking resemblance to the artefacts of the Körös culture. They also had the occasion to examine the rich assemblage of ¿nds unearthed during the American excavations at Starþevo, which represented an independent cultural unit whose artefacts were also visibly related to the Körös ¿nds. This cultural unit was later named the Starþevo culture. It thus became clear that the Körös culture preceded the Tisza culture and the then still unfamiliar Szakálhát group. It is an irony of fate that both Tompa and Banner emphasized

Tompa 1937, 45–47, e.g. Pl. 14. 1–9; Banner 1940, 19–22, Fig. 1. The pottery sherds presented by them can all be assigned to the Alföld Linear Pottery. 6 Dimitrijeviü 1966; Dimitrijeviü 1969a, 42–48; Dimitrijeviü 1969b; Dimitrijeviü 1974; Dimitrijeviü 1979. 5

Banner 1932. 2 Tompa 1937, 46–47. 3 Banner 1937. 4 Banner, pers. comm. in 1951. Cp. Fewkes et al. 1933. 1

12

Major milestones in Hungarian Early Neolithic research during the 20th century

shared numerous similarities.7 The earliest Neolithic in the north-eastern Alföld was at the time equated with the Szatmár I phase and the succeeding Szatmár II phase. However, the excavations at Méhtelek indicated that the ¿nds previously assigned to Szatmár I actually represented the Körös culture. The ¿nds from Méhtelek were accordingly assigned to the Körös culture from the very beginning.8 While various traits of the Körös culture could undeniably be recognised in the

¿nds from Méhtelek, certain elements nonetheless justi¿ed the treatment of the Méhtelek assemblage as a distinct variant of the Körös culture, which I named the Méhtelek group. Sites of this variant have since been identi¿ed elsewhere too, most recently at Ibrány, a settlement located on the left bank of the Tisza, whose ¿nds have been published in a series of comprehensive articles.9 Most of the blank spots on the Early Neolithic map of the Alföld have thus been ¿lled.10

Kalicz–Makkay 1972. We expressed the same opinion in our monograph on the Alföld Linear Pottery, whose manuscript had been submitted for publication the same year. However, the monograph was only published in 1977, and by that time, new research ¿ndings had in part disproved and in part con¿rmed earlier assumptions (Kalicz–Makkay 1977). 8 Kalicz–Makkay 1974a; Kalicz–Makkay 1974b; Kalicz–Makkay 1976. The assemblages earlier assigned to the Szatmár II phase are now described as representing the Szatmár phase. However, some prehistorians continue to use the Szatmár II label, which can in fact be correlated with the earliest, formative ALP phase.

Domboróczki–Raczky 2010; Chapman 2002; Gyulai 2010; Kovács et al. 2010; Kaczanowska–Kozáowski 2010; Kreiter 2010. 10 One of the few exceptions in this respect is represented by the white painted wares of the earliest Neolithic, known only from a few stray ¿nds.

7

9

13

The excavations at Méhtelek

Méhtelek lies in the north-eastern corner of Hungary (County Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg), not far from the border with Romania and the Ukraine. The area enclosed by the Tisza and Szamos rivers in the north-eastern Alföld is known as the Szatmár Plain or the Szamosköz region (Fig. 1). The region is criss-crossed by one-time watercourses, the most important among these being the Túr, now Àowing in a regulated bed. One of the river’s old, unregulated channels is called the Öreg Túr [Old Túr] by the locals. During the great Àood of 1970, the Szamos breached the Àood embankment in Romania and the Àoodwaters inundated Szatmárnémeti and the greater part of the lower-lying Szamosköz region. A Àood embankment was built by the border after the Àoodwaters had receded to prevent a similar catastrophe in the future. In 1971, the earthmoving machines disturbed an archaeological site during the construction of the embankment’s Méhtelek section between the Szamos and the Túr. One of the drivers, György Nagy can be credited with calling attention to what later turned out to be a major site: he collected the pottery sherds turned up by his machine and took them to the Jósa András Museum in Nyíregyháza. During a visit to the Nyíregyháza museum with János Makkay, we examined the ¿nds still kept in the original paper bags and we immediately realised that the machines had brought to light an extraordinary assemblage. In 1972, we visited the site and found that our initial impression was correct. The disturbed settlement features and pits visible on the surface all contained vessel fragments resembling the ones collected by Nagy, whose Early Neolithic nature was obvious even at ¿rst glance. Aware of the need for a rescue excavation, the site’s investigation in 1973 was generously funded by István Dienes, the then director of the Jósa András Museum. The excavation was conducted in two seasons, the ¿rst in April and the second in September. Two large pits and the surviving section of a smaller one were uncovered in the bulldozed area, while three disturbed pits could be identi¿ed in the section at the embankment’s base. A medium-sized undisturbed pit was completely excavated in the trial trench opened in the ploughland beyond the embankment, together with the section of a smaller pit. Altogether eight features were investigated and wholly or partially uncovered (Fig. 2. 2, Fig. 3. 1–4). The surviving section of the site lies some 300 m south of Méhtelek (Fig. 2. 1) near the right bank of the Old Túr, beside a one-time watercourse known as Nádas, a later marshland. The north-east to south-west running low ridge rises no more than 1.5–2 m above the surrounding land. The site lies on the ridge’s south-western part, cut in half by the east to west running embankment. Earth for the embankment was acquired from the area to the structure’s south, leading to the disturbance of the archaeological site and its features. Pure clay was also obtained from the same area. The embankment and its escarpment, as well as the base with the original surface extended over a 28–30 m wide section of the site’s area. The trial trenches were opened in the plough-land, some 15 m north of the embankment: of the three trenches opened

north of the embankment’s upper end, archaeological features (Pits7/Į and 7/ȕ) were only discovered in the one lying closest to the embankment. The greatest distance between the pit farthest to the north-east and the most distant one to its southwest was at least 80 m, while the greatest distance between the pits at the embankment’s southern end was roughly 85 m, suggesting that the site had extended over an area of at least 6500 m2. This estimate seems acceptable because Nagy, the sharp-sighted driver who had collected the ¿rst pottery fragments, noted that he had not seen any other patches with archaeological ¿nds in the area from where the earth had been removed. Luckily for us, only pure clay could be used for the construction: the humus layer and the prehistoric humus layer of the archaeological site was strongly “contaminated” by the organic material, pottery sherds and stones lying scattered over the archaeological site and it was therefore deemed unsuitable for the construction of the embankment. The site was thus saved from destruction. Earth from the area around the site was removed to a depth of 1.5–2 m, while only a 40–70 cm thick layer was removed from the site; the surviving island-like area outlined the site’s southern boundary. We began the excavation in this area, ¿rst uncovering the three pits which were clearly outlined (Pits 1–3/Į, 4–5/Į and II). We next excavated the slightly disturbed pits in the escarpment (Pits III and 6/Į-ȕ, and Pit I). Finally, we uncovered the last two pits (Pits 7/Į-ȕ) in the trial trench nearest to the embankment in the area to its north. The excavation was conducted by the present author together with János Makkay. Pál Raczky, still a university student at the time, also participated in the investigations, and he is to be thanked for drawing the plans of the excavated features and of the site itself. The ¿nds were taken to the Archaeological Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, where they were restored and photographed under my supervision. The ¿nds which had already been restored and photographed were subsequently exhibited in the Jósa András Museum.11 The ¿nds were eventually deposited in the Jósa András Museum, where they were inventoried by János Makkay.12 In 2008, Attila Kreiter examined ¿fteen pottery sherds and ¿gurine fragments from the site; later, he examined another thirty-eight.13

Kalicz–Makkay 1974a. Seventeen ¿gurine fragments and decorated pottery sherds accidentally remained in the Archaeological Institute and were not inventoried together with the other ¿nds. 13 Kreiter 2010. 11

12

14

The settlement features of the Méhtelek site

number of ¿nds. The remains of a ¿replace, whose western section was burnt to a red colour, lay at a depth of 30 cm in the pit’s northern part. Charcoal lay at its bottom. It would appear that the ash and charcoal from the ¿re(s) lit in the ¿replace had been simply swept into the pit on its northern sloping side because a thin layer of ash and specks of charcoal were spread across a lager area. Samples for radiocarbon dating were collected from this pit. The fragments of an anthropomorphic vessel came to light from the pit’s lower section: the fragment came from the vessel’s right side and showed a hand placed by the breast (Fig. 13. 1). The deepest part of Pit 4–5/Į lay at a depth of 135 cm from the modern surface in the pit’s southern half. Its ¿ll was predominantly made up of organic matter and thus the animal bones were also preserved together with a few bone and antler tools (Fig. 17. 5, Fig. 18. 1–2, 5–6) and a boar tusk plaque (Fig. 18. 3). The pit contained twentynine ¿gurines and their fragments. The ¿nds included a high number of pottery sherds (2564 of which were inventoried). Twenty-two vessels could be restored from their fragments.

Pit 1–3/Į (Fig. 19. 1) Three large soil marks were clearly visible south of the embankment: two turned out to be a larger pit complex, while the third indicated a smaller pit. We began the excavation with the investigation of the middle pit: we opened three smaller trenches which were enlarged owing to the pit’s large size (Trenches 1–3: 7 m by 4 m, 8 m by 4 m, 5 m by 2 m, 2 m by 2 m, 74 m2 altogether). The features uncovered in the three trenches proved to be parts of a large pit complex which was marked as Pit 1–3/Į. The pit complex was roughly north to south oriented and extended across two-thirds of the three trenches. The complex attained its ¿nal form through multiple later intrusions and enlargements. It extended slightly beyond the excavated area in the north and south, although its shallow depth suggested that the unexcavated sections were small, reÀected also by the surface scatter of ¿nds. The pit complex’s overall length was slightly greater than 11 m. The excavation of the pit was dif¿cult owing to the compactness of the soil. Similarly to the areas from which the soil had been removed by the machines, the upper part of the pit complex had a lighter colour. The contours of the blackish-grey pit were clearly outlined at a depth of ca. 20–30 cm. The pit was rich in ¿nds from its top to the bottom. Figurine fragments came to light with the pottery sherds in all ¿ll levels. The pit deepened from north to south. The pit’s Àoor lay at a depth of 45–50 cm at the northern end and at a depth of 105–120 cm at the southern end. Many burnt daub fragments and specks of burnt daub lay in the upper section on the eastern side, while a concentration of Àakes and stone tools could be noted in the middle part. The number of ¿nds grew scantier towards the pit’s Àoor. A poorly preserved bone spoon lay in the pit’s southern part (Fig. 16. 16). Twenty-four ¿gurines and ¿gurine fragments were recovered from this pit. The various sections of the pit complex had been dug at fairly short intervals of time. In addition to the twenty-four oblong slab ¿gurines and steatopygous ¿gurines, the pit yielded an enormous number of pottery fragments (2020 of which were inventoried). Seventeen vessels could be reconstructed from their fragments.

Pits 6/Į and 6/ȕ, location of Pit I (Fig. 40. 1) A concentration of ¿nds was noted in the escarpment of the embankment, 18 m east of Pit III. We opened Trench 6 (8 m by 3 m) in this location. The trench was later enlarged by a small, 2 m by 2 m trench to the north, whose greater part extended across the escarpment. Part of a larger pit complex made up of two pits and a small section of a third one was found in the western part of the trench. The greatest depth was 125 cm in Pit 6/Į, which contained a medium number of ¿nds, amongst them ¿ve ¿gurine fragments (the ¿nds from the pro¿le of Pit I examined in 1972 were also assigned here). A total of 122 vessel sherds were inventoried and three vessels could be restored from their fragments. The western part of the pit complex yielded charred plant remains, mostly burnt hazelnut shells, which were lifted together with the ¿ll around them.14 The third pit section yielded a high number of burnt daub fragments, but only few ceramics. Two small cylindrical pits resembling post-holes, one of them dug into the middle of the pit, were also uncovered. They perhaps indicate the one-time presence of some structure. A small, 115 cm deep round pit lay to the east (Pit 6/ȕ), which contained no more than a handful of pottery sherds. It seems likely that it had been part of the pit complex. Sadly, we were not given permission to excavate Pit I (identi¿ed during the site’s initial survey), which lay immediately by Pits 6/Į and 6/ȕ. The pit yielded the same type of ¿nds, as well as an oval slab ¿gurine (Fig. 4. 13), which I assigned to the category of oblong slab ¿gurines, of which two pieces came to light in this pit complex (Fig. 4. 11, 13). The fragment of a large steatopygous ¿gurine (Fig. 10. 5) was regarded as part of the ¿nds from Pit 6/Į.

Pit 4–5/Į (Fig. 28) Trench 4 (8 m by 4 m) was opened 16 m south of the embankment’s base and 11 m east of Pit 1–3/Į. Trench 5 (9 m by 5 m) lay adjacent to the southern side of Trench 4. The 77 m2 large area of the trenches was increased to 84 m2 after the enlargement of the two trenches. The eastern end of the pit extended beyond the investigated area. The enlargement of the trench revealed that the pit’s upper part had been destroyed by the earth-moving operations. The pit complex, the largest feature investigated at the site, extended over 90 per cent of the trenches and their extensions. The depth of the smaller intrusions varied. The pit was rich in ¿nds from its top to the bottom; as a matter of fact, this feature yielded the highest

14

15

Miklós F. Füzes was only able to identify hazelnuts and acorn in the samples (Füzes 1989, 164–165).

The settlement features of the Méhtelek site

Pit 7/Į (Fig. 42. 1)

few ¿nds. The greatest surviving depth ranged between 70 and 84 cm. Aside from the typical pottery sherds, the ¿nds included twenty-¿ve chipped stone implements.

Two east to west trenches running parallel to each other were opened in the plough-land north of the embankment. Trench 7 measured 25 m by 1 m, Trench 8, lying at a distance of 8 m to its east, measured 30 m by 1 m. The soil was extremely compact. After excavating down to a depth of 30 cm, we found a scatter of sherds indicating a pit in the western end and the eastern third of Trench 7. The amount of sherds increased at a depth of 40–45 cm and the contours of the pit were outlined at a depth of 55 cm. The trench was enlarged by a 4 m by 1 m block in the north and a 4 m by 2 m large block in the south. The pit had an almost regular round form. It contained a rich assemblage of ¿nds, including three ¿gurine fragments (Fig. 10. 6, 11–12), as well as lithics and 458 pottery sherds. Two vessels could be restored from their fragments. The upper part of the pit had a light greyish-yellow ¿ll, the lower part a darker ¿ll. The pit had a dished Àoor. Its greatest depth was 125 cm.

Pit III (Fig. 44. 2) The section of the pit extending under the escarpment of the embankment lay slightly north-east of Pit 4–5/Į. Its upper part had been largely destroyed by the machines. A 4 m by 2 m trench was opened for its investigation, which was enlarged by 3 m by 1.5 m in the north. The pit’s lower half had a black organic ¿ll mixed with burnt daub fragments, the upper part was ¿lled with yellow loamy mud, which barely contained any vessel sherds, but yielded a rich assemblage of stone Àakes and cores. This ca. 40 cm thick layer also yielded two stone axes. The organic blackish ¿ll contained relatively more ceramics, but fewer stone blades and Àakes. A large stone slab set against the pit’s wall lay at a depth of 80 cm. Several large perforated antler axes and their fragments lay between 80 and 100 cm, and a number of partially worked and unworked antlers came to light from between 100 and 130 cm (Fig. 17. 1–4, Fig. 18. 4). The pit’s Àoor was reached at a depth of 162 cm. Few ¿nds came to light from this section. A greenish-brown thin layer was noted at a depth of 100–120 cm. The ¿ll above it was blackish, containing organic matter and countless burnt daub fragments, while the ¿ll underneath was made up of a thick layer of charcoal and a yellowish-green clay layer with few ¿nds. Two steatopygous ¿gurines and an impressive number of pottery sherds (580 in all) came to light from this pit. Twelve vessels could be restored from their fragments. Other ¿nds included 651 chipped stone implements and Àakes, as well as twenty-two polished stone tools, quern stones and polishers.

Pit 7/ ȕ (Fig. 42. 1) A small pit which contained but a few vessel fragments only and thus we did not excavate the section lying outside the trench. The few ¿nds recovered from this feature included two joining fragments of a steatopygous ¿gurine (Fig. 10. 10). Pit II (Fig. 44. 1) Pit II lay in the 4.5 m by 3.5 m trench opened 12–13 m west of Pit 1–3/Į, in line with the former, at the edge of the territory from which no earth had been removed. Because the earth-moving machines had scooped deeper in the soil, only the small lower half of the pit survived which contained

16

The ¿nds from Méhtelek

identi¿ed in the fabric of the pottery ¿nds and the ¿gurines, it was always secondary (appearing in the form of ¿nely chopped vegetal matter) compared to the generally prevalent grit and small pebbles. Only in a few exceptional cases was a larger amount of chaff employed for tempering clay.16 It would appear that the tempering procedures generally employed by the potters of the Alföld Körös culture were not adopted in this region. The question naturally arises of whether the tempering procedure practiced by the Méhtelek potters resembles that of one or another neighbouring Early Neolithic community. Seeing that the ceramic wares of the most closely related Alföld Körös culture were made using different tempering agents (predominantly vegetal tempers), the examination of the tempers used in Transylvania seemed an obvious line of enquiry. Nicolae Vlassa noted that vegetal temper was the norm in most ceramic categories distinguished among the good quality wares from the earliest (“pre-Criú”) occupation at Gura Baciului/Bácsitorok.17 In his overview of the Romanian Neolithic, Eugen Comúa described the Transylvanian pottery of the Starþevo–Criú culture as having been predominantly tempered with chaff,18 noting that a similar practice could be seen in the case of contemporaneous ceramic wares from Moldavia.19 According to Eugenia Popuúoi, a mixed temper of chaff, sand and mica was used by the potters during the entire span of the Trestiana settlement in Moldavia.20 Iuliu Paul distinguished three different tempering procedures in the earliest ceramic assemblage from Ocna Sibiului/ Vízakna (which he labelled pre-Criú): coarse pottery was predominantly tempered with chaff and other vegetal matter, as well as sand and mica, medium coarse vessels had a lower proportion of vegetal temper, while ¿ne wares were exclusively tempered with ¿ne-grained sand.21 These scattered data are insuf¿cient for determining the general practice of how the period’s vessels were tempered. Michela Spataro’s recent analysis of pottery making techniques indicated that the earliest Starþevo–Criú vessels in Transylvania were almost exclusively tempered with vegetal matter (principally barley, chaff and chopped straw). She concluded that the quality of the available clay varied and that local potting practices were transmitted from one generation to the next.22 The currently available evidence indicates that vegetal temper was used in Transylvania and Moldavia, as well as in the Danube Gorges, although in varying proportions, depending on the quality of the pottery. At Cuina Turcului, for example, vegetal temper

The perhaps greatest importance of the Méhtelek site is that the ceramic ¿nds from the excavation enabled the identi¿cation and separation of the Méhtelek group, a distinct, independent variant of the Alföld Körös culture. In addition to the use of the most common ceramic wares and decorative motifs from the vast territory between the Aegean and the Carpathian Basin, the potters of the Méhtelek group experimented with various potting and decorative techniques when creating their own distinct vessels and other ceramic artefact types and the decorative motifs adorning them. Aside from the appearance of new elements speci¿c to the group, the quality and the sheer number of artefacts is also noteworthy. The various settlement features yielded sixty-seven ¿gurines and their fragments, an extraordinarily high number compared to the period’s other settlements, and especially in the case of a small one as the settlement at Méhtelek. Sixty vessels could be reconstructed from their fragments (¿fty-six of which are presented here). The ceramic assemblage included fragments of unusual vessels and an immense number of pottery sherds, of which over 6000 were inventoried. The number of pottery sherds brought to light was roughly three times as high.15 The petrographic analysis of the pottery ¿nds was performed by Attila Kreiter and György Szakmány (see pp. 113–117). They found that the pottery was made from locally available clays. The sixty restored vessels and the 325 vessel pro¿les presented here represent the entire range of vessel types used by the occupants of the Méhtelek settlement. It therefore seemed unnecessary to describe each vessel fragment separately because it would have meant an unnecessary repetition of the same ceramic types and a needless waste of space. There seemed no point in describing the vessels according to settlement features because there were no typological differences between the wares recovered from the various features. The description and evaluation of the pottery ¿nds from the pits is therefore presented according to vessel types. Pottery General traits of the pottery ¿nds One striking feature of the ceramics from Méhtelek is that while the vessels share many resemblances with the pottery of the Alföld Körös culture regarding their form and decoration, there are many dissimilarities too, which enabled the separation of the Méhtelek group. The Alföld Körös vessels were predominantly tempered with vegetal matter, principally chaff. In contrast, vegetal temper played a subordinate role at Méhtelek. Even though the use of vegetal temper could be 15

Cp. Attila Kreiter and György Szakmány’s study, in this volume (pp. 113– 117). 17 Vlassa 1972, 175, 183. 18 Comúa 1987, 69. 19 Comúa 1987, 70. 20 Popuúoi 2005, 129–135. 21 Paul 1995, 42–43. 22 Spataro 2008. She concluded that some potting practices could perhaps be linked to a more mobile life-style because pottery tempered with vegetal matter was 30 per cent lighter and could thus be transported more easily. This does not seem to be the case regarding the vessels from Méhtelek. 16

The ¿nds taken to the Jósa András Museum in Nyíregyháza were inventoried under nos 94.176.1–269. The pottery sherds were inventoried under 128 lots, and the unproportionately high number of sherds with the same inventory number makes the identi¿cation of individual ¿nds rather dif¿cult. In some cases, 152, 246 or even 380 pottery sherds were inventoried under the same number.

17

The ¿nds from Méhtelek

broken into pieces. The pottery ¿nds include a handful of sherds from thick-walled vessels, implying that the repertory of vessels comprised several larger pieces too (however, the size and form of these vessels remains unknown for the time being). It seems quite likely that larger vessels and containers were made from organic materials such as twigs, rush and reed plastered with clay, as well as from wood and leather, which rarely leave traces in the archaeological record. Most of the reconstructed vessels represented miniature, small and medium sized pieces; the vessel fragments too principally came from vessels in these size ranges. The number of larger vessels (standing up to 36 cm high) is lower because these vessels probably broke more easily and more often, and their fragments were scattered over the settlement to a greater extent than those from smaller vessels. In contrast, the number of miniature vessels is higher exactly because they did not break into many pieces owing to their size and this is the reason that many complete vessel pro¿les have survived. The same holds true for the small and medium sized vessels, although to a lesser extent. In other words, the number of reconstructable vessels is inversely proportionate to vessel size. No more than educated guesses can be made regarding the function of the clay vessels. Miniature vessels could hardly have been used for consuming food owing to their small size. They may have been used for holding fermented alcoholic beverages or healing substances. Their use as toys can be neither proven nor disproven at present. The small and medium sized vessels (6–7 cm to 16–18 cm high) make up the overwhelming majority of the restored vessels, and they also dominate the vessel fragments. They were probably used for preparing and consuming liquids and/or pulpy food, and perhaps each vessel was made for a speci¿c individual. However, their assumed function remains elusive in the lack of conclusive evidence. The number of large vessels (ranging from 16–18 cm to 35 cm in height) is by far the lowest because they were the most prone to breaking into pieces which were eventually scattered across the settlement. While the largest vessels of the Körös and Starþevo cultures stood up to 60 cm high, no comparably tall vessels were found at Méhtelek. It is possible that the Méhtelek potters were not skilled enough to create vessels of this size. The wall thickness of even the largest vessels is well below that of the larger Körös vessels and it is therefore likely that vessels made using the clays available at Méhtelek and the potting techniques of the settlement’s craftsmen would have collapsed. Two main categories can be distinguished among the larger vessels: high ones and broad ones. High vessels (pots) were probably used for cooking and for storing liquids or smaller amounts of solid substances, while broader vessels (bowls) most likely served for consuming solid foods. The latter were perhaps made to be used by several individuals. Their rim diameter is often over 30 cm and a few are as large as 40 cm. The extraordinarily high number of vessel fragments suggests that pottery played an important role in the life of the Méhtelek community. Unfortunately, nothing has survived of the vessels and containers made from organic materials, and therefore virtually nothing is known about the household utensils created from leather, wood, bark, reed, gourds and the like. The ethnographic record certainly indicates that aboriginal peoples living under Stone Age conditions until recently

dominates in all three occupation levels, while in Level II, some grit was mixed to chaff, and in Level III, the temper often included small pebbles too.23 It must here be noted that the pottery from Szentpéterszeg, a site of the Alföld Körös culture lying near Transylvania and even closer to the Partium, was characterised by a signi¿cant proportion of sandy and grit temper used in addition to chaff.24 It would appear that various local/regional tempering practices can be distinguished, one of these being the use of grit and small pebbles as at Méhtelek. This differs radically from how the potters of the Alföld Körös culture tempered their clays, but cannot be derived from the Transylvanian Criú culture. The tempering agents used at Méhtelek and their proportion appears to be a regional practice adapted to local conditions. Similarly to the ceramics of other Early Neolithic communities in the Carpathian Basin, the pottery from Méhtelek is characterised by a sandwich structure, indicating that these communities ¿red their ceramics at more-or-less identical temperatures. The sandwich-like structure means that the outer and inner borders are light, while the core is blackishgrey. The vessels made at Méhtelek have a thinner wall than the Körös wares from the Alföld, another typical trait of the Méhtelek group. Unfortunately, the vessel surfaces are greatly eroded owing to the chemical properties of the soil and the thin outer layer of ¿nely-levigated clay wash applied to the surface to make the vessel surface smoother was often destroyed. Most vessels were ¿red to various hues of orange, buff and brown, often with mottling resembling the vessel’s basic colour or in various shades of grey. Painted decoration was occasionally applied to the smoothed surface; however, few traces of the painted patterns survived. The few surviving patches of paint and painted motifs reÀects patterns created from wide black bands. It would appear that similarly to the Alföld and northern Transylvania, vessel painting was a rare decorative practice at Méhtelek. However, it must be borne in mind that conclusive evidence for the general use or lack of painting in the Méhtelek group can only be gained from the discovery of a larger ceramic sample at a site with favourable soil conditions. The pottery from Méhtelek can be grouped according to various criteria. One option is classi¿cation according to size, which can provide an indication of the vessels’ possible function. The ¿rst category in this system is made up of miniature vessels, standing no more than 5–6 cm high (Fig. 20. 1–4, 6–7, Fig. 30. 2–4, Fig. 40. 2, Fig. 45. 1–7, Fig. 49. 1–4), followed by small and medium sized vessels, ranging from 15 to 18 cm in height (Fig. 20. 5–14). The third major category comprises the vessels between 18 and 35–36 cm (Fig. 19. 1, Fig. 29. 3–7, Fig. 40. 4, Fig. 42. 2–3, Fig. 50. 7, Fig. 51. 3–6, 8, 10), as well as bowls with a rim diameter up to 40 cm (Fig. 21. 2, Fig. 30. 11, 13, Fig. 49. 9–10). None of the vessels from Méhtelek stood higher than 36 cm, and none of the examined fragments came from large storage jars or liquid containers of the type known from the Körös culture. I would assume that the reason for this can be sought in pottery manufacturing techniques: the procedure used by the Méhtelek potters was unsuitable for creating larger pots because their vessels, being generally more thin-walled than the wares of the Alföld Körös culture, would have been unsuitable for bearing a greater load and would simply have 23 24

BoroneanĠ 1970, 407. Excavation by the present author and Pál Raczky in 1977–78.

18

The ¿nds from Méhtelek

that these vessels were used for serving several individuals. It would appear that bowls were not used for consuming liquid foods. All variants of the smaller and larger bowls from Méhtelek have good analogies among the ceramic ¿nds of the southern Alföld Körös culture.29 Other miniature vessels include small bowls with straight walls and a rounded base (Fig. 20. 4, Fig. 45. 1, Fig. 49. 4). The larger vessels of this type are almost always set on small feet.

used a wide range of these materials for crafting vessels and containers. Vessel forms The range of vessel forms is not particularly varied in the ceramic assemblage from Méhtelek. Most vessels are characterised by a simplicity of form and functionality, Some forms can be correlated with vessel size. Miniature vessels usually imitate the shape of small and medium sized vessels. Most vessels are made up of two parts, the vessel proper and a low oval or rectangular foot, or a low foot-ring. Some have a pronounced base (Fig. 20. 4, Fig. 26. 13, 15, Fig. 36. 2–3, 7–8, Fig. 45. 1–3, 5–6, Fig. 49. 3–4). Many are set on four small feet (Fig. 20. 1–3, 6–7, Fig. 30. 2–3, Fig. 40. 2, Fig. 45. 2, Fig. 49. 2, 5, 7–8, 11), although some have ¿ve, six or eight feet, and, very rarely, as many as ten feet (Fig. 25. 14, Fig. 36. 17, 19–21). This predilection for low feet is one of the hallmarks of the Méhtelek group. Similar small feet were common in the southern Alföld Körös culture, although to a lesser extent. It would appear that bowls of this type were adopted from the Alföld Körös culture because the same vessel forms are provided with feet as in the Méhtelek group.25 Vessels set on feet are also common in the larger ceramic assemblages of the Méhtelek group brought to light on sites along the upper reaches of the Tisza in the Ukraine.26 They are rare outside the distribution of the southern Alföld Körös culture and the Méhtelek group. In Transylvania, for example, they are only encountered on the western fringes (in the Partium region), in the Bihar region and in the Banat,27 both areas to where the distribution of the southern Alföld Körös culture extended.

Miniature cups and mugs The height of the cups and mugs in this category usually exceeds their rim diameter. Most have a cylindrical, barrel shaped, rounded or slightly conical body, and their section is occasionally oval. Some variants are set on four small feet (Fig. 20. 6–7, Fig. 30. 4, Fig. 45. 2, 5–6). Parallels to almost all variants of miniature vessels can be quoted from the ceramic assemblage uncovered at the EndrĘd 119 site.30 Small and medium sized bowls The ceramic inventory from Méhtelek is dominated by vessels falling into this category, standing between 6–7 cm and 16– 18 cm tall. The bowls in this group are generally set on four or more small feet. The bowls come in many forms. Most have an indrawn rim. Some bowls have a globular body (Fig. 20. 7, 10, Fig. 30. 6–8, Fig. 32. 7–11, Fig. 45. 8–9, Fig. 49. 14, Fig. 50. 1–3, 7), others have a gentle or more prominent carination (Fig. 20. 9, 14, Fig. 30. 7, 10, Fig. 37. 1–3, 14, 16, Fig. 50. 5). Another variant has a straight rim, a straight upper part and a rounded base (Fig. 20. 8, Fig. 30. 9, Fig. 50. 6). Some biconical bowls and fragments (Fig. 20. 14, Fig. 30. 10, Fig. 50. 7–8) or from bowls with a low neck (Fig. 21. 14–17, Fig. 32. 16–23). The variants of each type do not differ markedly from each other and each variant has its counterpart among the vessels of the Alföld Körös culture.31 Although represented among the vessel fragments, no more than two bowls with rounded base could be reconstructed, whose form corresponds to that of the footed bowls (Fig. 20. 4, Fig. 45. 1). The smaller and larger bowls described in the above represent basic types of the Early Neolithic. The practice of setting bowls on small feet was popular in the southern Alföld Körös culture and in the Méhtelek group alike, and can thus be regarded as a regional trait. In contrast, vessels supported by small feet are rarely encountered in the Starþevo and Criú cultures. The difference between the bowls in the southern Alföld Körös culture and the Méhtelek group is that at Méhtelek, small, medium sized and large bowls were almost without exception set on low feet (or a foot-ring), while vessels set on a low foot are at least as abundant as those with a low or medium high, slightly conical pedestal in the ceramic inventory of the southern Alföld Körös culture. In contrast, pedestalled bowls are barely represented at Méhtelek (Fig. 36. 8, Fig. 43. 5). A glance at the Early Neolithic ceramic wares of the Balkans reveals that bowls and other vessels set on low feet are extremely rare in Transylvania, Moldavia and the Balkans. Most comparable ceramics have been brought to light in the Morava Valley and farther east.32 While vessels

Miniature conical bowls and large, straight-sided, deep bowls Simple conical bowls are common among miniature vessels, as are the variants having a pronounced base and a low footring. Bowls set on small feet are also amply represented (Fig. 20. 1–3, 6–7, Fig. 30. 2–3, 6, Fig. 49. 6–8). Slightly larger bowls too are characterised by a prominent base or a foot-ring (Fig. 26. 6–7, 13–14, Fig. 36. 1–3). The most common type among the larger bowls has a pronounced base and a foot-ring. One variant has a sharp carination above the separately made, slightly conical foot-ring (Fig. 30. 12, Fig. 45. 4, Fig. 49. 12). This bowl has an excellent parallel from Kopáncs–Zsoldos-tanya.28 This similarity is hardly surprising because almost all vessel types have their counterparts in the southern Alföld Körös culture. One popular variant of the slightly larger conical bowls was often set on four small feet too (Fig. 20. 1–3, 5, Fig. 21. 2, Fig. 30. 1–2, Fig. 45. 7, Fig. 49. 7, 9). The vessel fragments include pro¿les of smaller bowls (Fig. 31. 2–3, 6–7). The large conical bowls with a rim diameter often as wide as 35–40 cm were likewise provided with small feet (Fig. 21. 2, Fig. 30. 11, 13, Fig. 49. 10) and bowls of this type are amply represented among the pottery fragments (Fig. 21. 3–5, Fig. 31. 1–10). The high number of bowls suggests that they were often used in the household and Kutzián 1944, 1947, Pl. 1. 5, Pl. 3. 4, Pl. 5. 1–8, 10, Pl. 14. 10–11, Pl. 20. 4; Makkay 1992, Pls 9–14, 24. 26 Potushniak 2004, Fig. 9a-b. 19, 22, 140–144. 27 IgnaĠ 1979, Pl. 7. 2, Pl. 9. 2; Iercoúan 1994–95, Fig. 7. 3, Fig. 10. 5–6; Virag 2008, Fig. 21; Lazarovici 1979, Pl. 8. C 17–18. 28 Kutzián 1944, 1947, Pl. 31. 9. 25

Kutzián 1944, 147, Pl. 5. 7, Pl. 32. 5, 7; Makkay 1992, Pls 9–10, Pl. 12. 2, 6. Makkay 1992, Pl. 26. 31 Kutzián 1944, 1947, Pl. 14. 10–11, Pl. 34. 1–6; Makkay 1992, Pls 13–14; Kalicz 2000, Abb. 3. 1–14. 32 Garašanin 1979, Fig. 9. 1a-2, Pl. 13. 3, 6. 29 30

19

The ¿nds from Méhtelek

type is absent from the neighbouring Early Neolithic cultures of southern origins. It is therefore surprising that jars of this type abound in the later Dudeúti culture of Oltenia.37 Vessels echoing this form can be found in the Szatmár group (the earliest ALP) together with various other artefact types originating from the Méhtelek group. It has already been noted that most vessel types of the Méhtelek settlement can be correlated with Balkanic-Aegean basic forms, the single exception being the large, wide-mouthed jar with low neck, high-set shoulder and constricted base (Fig. 22. 5–9, 11, 13, Fig. 27. 1, 8, 10–11, 28–32, Fig. 33. 20). This form is alien to Early Neolithic vessel forms to the extent that it is missing from the Alföld Körös culture and the Criú culture of Transylvania and Moldavia, as well as from the Starþevo culture and the entire Balkanic-Aegean culture province. It would appear that this vessel form was an innovation of the Méhtelek potters and was only distributed in the group’s territory. Similarly to the oblong slab ¿gurines and the head form of steatopygous ¿gurines surviving into the early ALP (Szatmár group) and the classical ALP, this vessel type was also adopted by the Szatmár group, although with slight modi¿cations. The resemblances between the jar types used by the two cultures are reÀected by the low neck, the high-set, wide shoulder and the elongated body with constricted base.38

standing on small feet are slightly more widespread in Bulgaria (e.g. at Pernik33), vessels set on four low feet did not become a hallmark of any one culture either in Transylvania and Moldavia, or in the Balkans. Only in the Körös culture and in the Méhtelek group are vessels of this type one of the most typical forms, especially among bowls, in the ceramic inventory. The origins of this vessel form can be sought in the Alföld, where its popularity was the greatest. Although Makkay suggested that this ceramic type can perhaps be traced to Hacilar, where several vessels set on feet were brought to light,34 this seems unlikely in view of the immense distance between the two regions and the lack of similar ¿nds from the sites between the two, despite the fact that most Early Neolithic vessel forms in South-East Europe can be derived from western Anatolia. Cups, beakers, mugs Standing 6–8 cm tall, these vessels can be assigned to the category of small drinking vessels. The single reconstructed cup is rounded and adorned with pinched decoration arranged in pairs (Fig. 29. 1–2, Fig. 49. 13). The small mug with S pro¿le has two vertically perforated lug handles (Fig. 30. 5, Fig. 49. 15), and the barrel shaped small cup, assigned to the category of miniature vessels, was probably a drinking vessel too (Fig. 30. 4, Fig. 49. 3). Several sherds from vessels of this type occurred among the ¿nds.

Flasks Compared to jars, Àasks are higher vessels with narrow cylindrical or slightly outturned neck, a globular or oval body and a foot-ring or four small feet. One Àask is decorated with two horizontally set lug handles (Fig. 19. 3, Fig. 29. 4, Fig. 40. 4, Fig. 51. 8–9). Some vessel fragments probably come from Àasks (Fig. 23. 1–4, 8, 10, 14–16, Fig. 41. 2, 6). Flasks were probably used for storing liquids (water).

Jars Jars represent the most typical vessel type of the Méhtelek group. Interestingly enough, jars are lacking from the ceramic inventory of the Alföld Körös culture. No more than a few roughly similar vessels are known from Transylvania and Moldavia, suggesting that this ceramic type was not used in other contemporaneous cultures. It would appear that these vessels were an innovation of the Méhtelek potters. With the exception of a few medium sized specimens standing 10–12.5 cm high (Fig. 20. 11, 13), jars can be assigned to the category of large vessels whose height ranges between 20 and 30 cm (Fig. 29. 3, Fig. 40. 3, Fig. 42. 2–3, Fig. 45. 10–11, Fig. 51. 1–6). They probably functioned as liquid containers or were used for storing cereal grains and other foodstuffs. Jars have a low, cylindrical or pronounced shoulder and a downward tapering body. Some have a wide shoulder. Smaller variations can be noted in the vessel body whose form ranges from conical to oval and rounded with a wide or pronounced base. Most pots were fragmented (Fig. 22. 1–14, Fig. 33. 16–18, 20, Fig. 34. 14–17, 19, 21–22). The decorated fragments for which the vessel form can be reconstructed all come from jars (Fig. 27. 1–32, Figs 37–39). The base fragments indicate that this type was not set on feet. The many fragments suggest that this vessel type played a prominent role in the Méhtelek households. Jars resembling the ones from the eponymous site occur frequently among the ceramics from settlements of the Méhtelek group yielding larger ceramic assemblages in the Ukraine.35 With the exception of a few pieces,36 the vessel

Oval vessels and pannier shaped vessels The elongated oval bodied vessel with straight narrow rim and four small feet standing 22.5 cm tall can be assigned to the category of large vessels (Fig. 29. 5, Fig. 51. 10).39 The vessel’s form recalls a pannier. It seems likely that this vessel also functioned as a liquid container owing to its narrow mouth. The lower part of a larger vessel can also be assigned to this category in view of the horizontal handle set near the base (Fig. 19. 4). Several other fragments probably come from vessels of this type. This vessel is one of the basic forms of the Early Neolithic. An oval vessel from Dyakovo/ Gyakovo with three small feet is paralleled by a similar piece from VerbiĠa in Oltenia.40 A few examples can be quoted from the Morava Valley in Serbia,41 as well as from the more distant Anza Begovo settlement.42 Large globular vessels Large vessels with low, slightly outcurving wide neck and wide base. Some of these vessels are as tall as 35 cm (Fig. 19. 1, Fig. 22. 2–3, Fig. 23. 2–3, 7–8, 10, Fig. 51. 7). Nica 1976, Fig. 4. 1, Fig. 6. 1–4, 8, 14, Fig. 7. 1. Domboróczki 1997, 163 (Cat. no. 41), 164 (Cat. no. 63); Kalicz–Koós 2001, Abb. 19. 10, Abb. 21. 4; Kovács 2001, Fig. 7. 1–2; Kovács 2007, Fig. 11. 3–5; Kurucz 1989, Pl. 59. 1; Raczky 1988, Fig. 10. 4 (KĘtelek), Fig. 26. 10, Fig. 27. 4 (Tiszavalk). 39 Berciu 1952, Fig. 17. 2. 40 Comúa 1960, Pl. II. 51. 41 E.g. from Drenovac: Vetniü 1974, Pl. 4. 8. 42 Garašanin 1979, Fig. 9. 1–2, Pl. 13. 3, 6; Tasiü 2006, Pl. 3. 17. 37 38

ýochadžiev 1983, Fig. 23. 11–12, Fig. 26. 10; Pavúk 2006, Fig. 3a. 5; Nikolov 1992, Fig. 59. 8, Fig. 63. 3–4. 34 Makkay 1974, 145. For a discussion of Early Neolithic vessels set on several feet, cp. Kalicz 1990, 57 and notes 276–283. 35 Potushniak 2004, Fig. 9a-b. 1–5, 15, 68, 73, 77, 104–105. 36 Garašanin 1979, Pl. 17. 6; Comúa 1978, Fig. 10. 13–15. 33

20

The ¿nds from Méhtelek

Incised and impressed decoration Impressed motifs were usually made by ¿ngertips (singly or in pairs), by pinching or by using a tool such as a mussel shell (Figs 27, 37–39, 47, 48, Fig. 52. 1, 5, 9). The use of mussels for creating decorative patterns has been documented in the southern Alföld Körös culture too. Finger impressions applied in pairs are rare and their arrangement recalls pinched spike patterns. The designs thus created usually cover the entire vessel surface, a notable difference compared to the southern Alföld Körös culture whose potters rarely ¿lled the entire vessel body with ornamental designs. Single ¿ngertip impressions arranged into horizontal and oblique or vertical rows covering the vessel body are quite frequent. These patterns are sometimes very heavily impressed and the ridges between the impressed rows resemble applied decoration (Fig. 47. 1, 8–9, 12). Patterns created with nail or mussel impressions resemble the designs with paired ¿ngertips, although with several variations. For example, the rows of dense (light or heavy) impressions are Àanked by lines resembling decoration in the stab and drag (Furchenstich) style (Fig. 47. 3, 13). On some fragments, the Furchenstichlike motifs are arranged into multiple parallel lines forming horizontal, vertical or oblique patterns. No regularities can be discerned in these patterns. Although some of the decorative techniques and patterns, as well as some of the ornamental motifs occur on the vessels of the southern Alföld Körös culture too, the designs on the Méhtelek vessels differ markedly from those of the Körös culture. Designs made up of randomly incised lines and of incised lines arranged into a lattice pattern are lacking at Méhtelek, as are patterns created from reed impressions. Applied barbotine decoration of irregular blobs of clay, so typical for the southern Alföld Körös culture, is also conspicuously absent. The Méhtelek potters apparently had a predilection for patterns created from impressed dots and wedge shaped impressions (Fig. 27. 4, 15–16, 28, Fig. 37. 10, Fig. 52. 6), which are entirely lacking in the southern Körös distribution. It would appear that the impressed designs adorning the Méhtelek vessels are quite unique. While several motifs were undoubtedly adopted from the southern Alföld Körös culture, the rich repertoire of patterns created from these motifs was peculiar to the Méhtelek potters. With the exception of the basic ornamental motifs of the South-East European Early Neolithic adopted from the Körös culture, the decoration of the Méhtelek vessels has no counterparts. In other words, the Méhtelek potters created entirely new designs. Alongside the characteristic elements described above, the rich variety and uniqueness of the impressed designs too justi¿es the treatment of the Méhtelek group as a separate cultural unit. A search for remotely similar decoration leads to the Bug– Dniester culture, whose pottery was decorated with a similar combination of impressed dots and linear patterns, as well as wedge shaped impressions.49 Comúa too noted these similarities and, quoting Popuúoi, suggested possible contacts with Moldavia.50 However, the similar motifs quoted by him were common across South-East Europe during the Early Neolithic and were part of the basic ornamental repertoire of the Bug–Dniester culture. No far-reaching conclusions can be drawn from the few similarities because only the

Four perforated lug handles are set on the shoulder of the reconstructed vessel. Body fragments from vessels of this type usually have Àat and pointed knobs set on the belly and the lower part (Fig. 29. 6–7). Many fragments come from vessels of this type (Fig. 25. 1–9, Fig. 35. 14–16). Flasks, pannier shaped vessels and large globular vessels are all basic forms of the Early Neolithic, whose distribution extends from the Carpathian Basin through Romanian Moldavia and the Balkans to Thessaly. Pedestals and vessel feet The rare forms at Méhtelek include the few medium tall, slightly conical pedestals (Fig. 36. 4, 8, Fig. 43. 5). Their rareness is all the more striking because pedestals of this type are quite common in the Early Neolithic of South-East Europe. They are very frequent in the Alföld Körös culture. The shape of vessels with a similar function was no doubt modi¿ed according to the taste of the community or culture using them. Mention must be made of a hollow and a solid foot, each represented by a single specimen only at Méhtelek. Both are medium tall and can be assigned to the category of quatrefoil feet. The hollow foot recalls the shape of a four-leaved clover owing to its lobed division (Fig. 16. 13), while the originally quatrefoil shape of the solid foot is suggested by the vertical grooving (Fig. 16. 14). The pedestal with four vertical and oblique grooves from the Nagyecsed site of the Méhtelek group (Fig. 56. 16)43 represents a similar form. A few comparable pieces to the quatrefoil fragment are known to me from the southern Alföld Körös culture: one from Gyálarét,44 the other from ÓbesenyĘ/Beúenova veche in the Banat,45 and a third one from Perlez ”Batka”.46 Quatrefoil vessel feet are considerably more frequent in south-eastern Transylvania and Moldavia, where they range from solid and semi-solid to hollow varieties coming in both tall, medium tall and low pieces.47 Quatrefoil feet and variants with more divisions occur in several cultural groups in Oltenia.48 It seems likely that the few quatrefoil vessel feet in the Méhtelek group, in the Alföld Körös culture and in the Starþevo culture were inspired by similar vessels in southeastern Transylvania or Moldavia. Aside from the oblong slab ¿gurines, these vessel feet are the single evidence for contact between the Méhtelek group and Transylvania. It is uncertain whether vessels with a quatrefoil low foot known from the Early Neolithic cultures of Bulgaria and Macedonia are related to the similar vessels from south-east Transylvania and Moldavia, It seems to me that there was no relation between the two. Pottery decoration While only one small decorated vessel could be restored from its fragments (Fig. 29. 1–2), countless decorated sherds came to light during the excavation. Most come from the characteristic jars of the Méhtelek type (Figs 27. 37–39, 46–48). Kalicz–Makkay 1977, Taf. 1. 16. Trogmayer 2004, Fig. 4. 1. 45 Lazarovici 1975, Pl. 4. 13; Lazarovici 1976, Fig. 4. 13. 46 Marinkoviü 2006, Pl. 8. 6. 47 Zaharia 1962, Fig. 7. 4, Fig. 8. 1, 3, 6–7, Fig. 9. 1, 3–4; Comúa 1978, Fig. 27. 2; Ursulescu 1984, Pl. 17. 17, Pl. 29. 16, Pl. 40. 8; Popuúoi 2005, Fig. 56. 1, Fig. 71. 1, Fig. 80. 1, Fig. 81. 3. 48 Nica 1977, Fig. 7. 5–6, 8–11. 43 44

49 50

21

Danilenko 1969, Fig. 42. 4–5, Fig. 46. 10–11, Fig. 64. 1. 4. Comúa 1982.

The ¿nds from Méhtelek

a small settlement, de¿nitely calls for a detailed description and discussion of these ¿nds. Described here will be the ¿ftyone inventoried and the sixteen uninventoried pieces; the ¿gurine identi¿ed during the inventorying of the ¿nds is not included. The ¿gurines are presented according to type and the feature they were found in. Their description is based on the entries in the invetory book of the Jósa András Museum in Nyíregyháza.

most common and generally widespread Balcano-Aegean vessel types of the Early Neolithic occur in Moldavia and western Ukraine, where the period’s ceramic inventories are dominated by vessels with a pointed base. For the time being, there is no conclusive evidence for contact between the two cultures. Many vessels from Méhtelek have an impressed or notched rim (Fig. 22. 6, 8, 12, Fig. 23. 14, Fig. 27. 28, Fig. 33. 18, Fig. 34. 17), a general decorative practice in the South-East European Early Neolithic, similarly to the use of certain ornamental motifs.

Oblong slab ¿gurines The twenty-seven ¿gurines in this group (comprising both intact and fragmentary pieces) are the perhaps most remarkable pieces in the corpus of Méhtelek ¿gurines (Figs 4–6). The highly schematic modelling of these Àat ¿gurines reÀects a degree of abstraction previously unencountered among the ¿nds of the Körös culture in Hungary. Nine ¿gurines were intact, the rest were broken. The upper body survived on ¿ve ¿gurines, the torso on three and the lower body on ten. The human nature of the ¿gurines was indicated by the eyes, the mouth, the navel and the genitals, as well as by the depiction of hair on some pieces. The ¿gurines were without exception created using the techniques employed in pottery making. In contrast to the ceramics from the southern Alföld, their fabric barely contained vegetal matter; the local clay containing volcanic rock and other mineral fragments was tempered with small pebbles. Some ¿gurines were eroded while buried and now have a rough surface. For the time being, Méhtelek is the single site in the group’s distribution where such a high number of oblong slab ¿gurines has been discovered.

Applied decoration Ornamental knobs and ribs occurred on three fragments only (Fig. 16. 1, 3–4). One fragment is covered with small, pointed knobs, another with a wavy rib, the third with a combination of pointed knobs and ribs arranged in a lattice pattern. Parallels to all three can be quoted from the Körös site at Tiszaug– Tópart.51 The knobs applied to vessels, principally large pots, were not decorative elements, but had a practical function: they ensured a better grip. These simple conical knobs were usually set on the vessel shoulder and the lower body singly, in pairs or in threes, often in alternating position (Fig. 20. 12–13, Fig. 22. 2–4, 6, 9, 11, 13–14, Fig. 23. 12–13, 15, Fig. 29. 6–7, Fig. 33. 11, 20, Fig. 38. 1, 3, 12–13, Fig. 42. 2–3, 6). Small pointed knobs can often be found on small mugs and cups (Fig. 29. 1–2, Fig. 45. 3, Fig. 49. 13). One popular variant is represented by disc shaped impressed knobs (Fig. 25. 1–9, Fig. 32. 1–9, Fig. 35. 14–16). A few vessels are covered with an irregularly smoothed clay wash resembling Schlickwurf barbotine (Fig. 16. 7–8, 10–12).

Pit 1–3/Į 1. Oblong slab ¿gurine. The nine impressed dots on top of the head, the eight impressed dots on the forehead and the two punctates on each side probably mark the hair. A pronounced knob indicates the nose on which the nostrils are also depicted. A V shaped incision can be seen above the nose. A round impression in the middle of the body symbolizes the navel. The horizontal line at the bottom and the four impressed dots separated by three incised vertical lines perhaps depict the pubic area, as on the ¿gurine described under No. 3. The legs are not indicated. The ¿gurine thickens slightly downward. Light greyish-brown, made from ¿ne sandy fabric, with carefully smoothed surface. Intact. H. 5.6 cm, Th. (base) 1.1 cm. Inv. no. 94.176.63 (Fig. 4. 1, Fig. 6. 6).

Handles Handles are represented by lug handles and smaller horizontal (Fig. 19. 3–4, Fig. 21. 1, Fig. 24. 15–19, 22), and vertical loop handles (Fig. 24. 20–21, 23), mostly set on pots and pannier shaped vessels. Painted decoration Although few traces of the one-time painted decoration have survived, they do indicate that vessel painting was practiced at Méhtelek. Unfortunately, most painted patterns were completely destroyed by the acidic soil. A black painted band under the rim has survived on a handful of sherds only (Fig. 16. 5–6),52 as has the design of painted bands on a few body fragments.53 The few surviving fragments do not enable a comparison with the painted decoration of other cultures.

2. Slab ¿gurine with slightly irregular, downward widening body. A V shaped incision can be seen above the knob marking the nose, resembling the motif on the previous piece. The two barely visible impressions on each side of the nose indicate the eyes. The nail impressions in the middle of the body are perhaps those of the prehistoric sculptor. A series of short, worn, incised lines can be made out at the base. The ¿gurine thickens slightly downward; its back broke off. Dark brown. Intact. H. 3.4 cm, Th. (base) 0.8 cm. Inv. no. 94.176.61 (Fig. 4. 2, Fig. 6. 4).

Figurines The excavations at Méhtelek yielded an extraordinarily rich and varied assemblage of anthropomorphic ¿gurines. The number of small clay ¿gurines, most of them broken, totalled sixty-six by the end of the excavation. An additional ¿gurine was identi¿ed during the inventorying of the ¿nds, bringing the number to sixty-seven. This astonishingly rich corpus of human representations from a single site, especially from such

3. Small slab ¿gurine with rounded top. Four shallow impressions on the side of the head perhaps denote the coiffure. A Àat knob for the nose is set between the eyes rendered by two shallow, oval impressions extending to the edge on each side. The horizontal line and the three

Kutzián 1944, 1947, Pl. 7. 1, 3–4, 7. Inv. no. 94.176.112–113. 53 Inv. no. 94. 176.150, 161. 51 52

22

The ¿nds from Méhtelek

10. Slab ¿gurine with rectangular lower and rounded upper part. The position of the knob marking the nose and the depression denoting the navel can be barely made out. Brick red, made from clay tempered with sand, grit and larger pebbles. Strongly worn. Intact. H. 4.8 cm, Th. 2 cm. Inv. no. 94.176.64 (Fig. 4. 10).

short vertical lines underneath at the bottom possibly denote the pubic area. Blackish-grey, made from sandy clay tempered with grit. Worn. Intact. H. 3.1 cm, Th. 0.7–0.8 cm. Inv. no. 94.76.60 (Fig. 4. 3, Fig. 6. 1). 4. A most unusual ¿gurine owing to its modelling. The ¿gurine has a slightly oblique upper or lower part. Both body halves bear the same depiction, a face on top and at the bottom as if mirroring each other. Two slightly differing oblique incisions mark the eyes on the upper part, the nose is indicated by a pronounced knob. The two short incisions depicting the eyes can be found on the body’s lower half too, but the knob for the nose broke off and its one-time position is now indicated by a shallow depression. Two small inverted V shaped incisions can be made out under the depression on the lower half. Dark greyish-brown, mottled, made from clay tempered with sand, grit and vegetal matter. Intact. H. 5.3 cm, Th. (top) 1.4 cm. Inv. no. 94.176.65 (Fig. 4. 4, Fig. 6. 5, the latter showing the piece upside down).

11. Lower body fragment of a slab ¿gurine with partly worn, partly smoothed, uneven surface. The shallow impression marking the navel is set inside a slightly deeper lentil shaped depression. The genital was probably depicted in a similar manner. The core is of clay tempered with grit and ¿nely chopped vegetal matter. Dark grey. H. 4.4 cm, Th. 1.1 cm. Inv. no. 94.176.90 (Fig. 4. 12). 12. Oval slab ¿gurine. The eyes are denoted by oblique incisions. The incision of the right eye was partly smoothed and can barely be made out. The nose is modelled as a longish oval knob and it is Àanked by a V shaped incision. The surface is uneven, despite its having been smoothed. The back bears irregular shallow incisions. Reddish-brown, made from clay tempered with sand and grit. The right lower part is restored. H. 8.4 cm, Th. 2.7 cm. Inv. no. 94.176.54 (Fig. 4. 13, Fig. 6. 11). This ¿gurine was assigned to this category of human ¿gurines owing to its modelling and Àatness, rather than its regular oblong form. Together with various other pottery sherds, this ¿gurine was found in the escarpment of the embankment’s base, in a feature marked as Pit I.55

5. Upper fragment of a downward widening slab ¿gurine. The eyes are denoted by two oval impressions. The tiny knob between the eyes probably marked the nose. A small round impression above the fracture indicates the navel. Strongly worn. Dark blackish-grey, made from clay tempered with sand and vegetal matter. The right side is restored. H. 4.5 cm, Th. 2.7 cm. Inv. no. 94.176.55 (Fig. 4. 5, Fig. 6. 8).

Pit 4–5/Į 13. Upper body fragment of a slab ¿gurine. The eyes are denoted by shallow oval impressions. The knob marking the nose broke off. Similarly to several other ¿gurines, an inverted V shaped motif was incised above the nose. A round shallow impression in the middle of the body indicates the navel. The surface is worn and partly smoothed. Dark grey, made from clay tempered with sand and some vegetal matter. H. 5.6 cm, Th. 1.8 cm. Inv. no. 94.176.76 (Fig. 5. 1, Fig. 6. 10).

6. The smallest ¿gurine, a miniature piece. Narrow, oblong ¿gurine, on which the eyes and the nose are indicated by small punctates. The pubic area is depicted by three similar punctates (although one perhaps denotes the navel). Greyish-dark brown, made from sandy clay tempered with vegetal matter. Intact. H. 3 cm, Th. 0.4 cm. Inv. no. 94.176.98 (Fig. 4. 6, Fig. 6. 2).54 7. Upper body fragment of a smaller slab ¿gurine. The eyes and the nose are marked by impressions. The body widens slightly downward. Grey, made from clay tempered with sand. H. 2.1 cm, Th. 1.1 cm. Inv. no. 94.176.53 (Fig. 4. 7, Fig. 6. 3).

14. Oblong slab ¿gurine. The eyes are marked by short, oblique incisions that were not placed in line with each other. The Àat-topped knob denoting the nose was modelled separately and the nostrils were also marked. The navel is indicated by a distinct impression in the centre of a round shallow depression, while the genital is symbolised with a dotted circle. The two sides are decorated with semi-circular nail impressions. Intact. Made from clay tempered with sand, and carefully smoothed H. 6.8 cm, Th. 2.1 cm. Inv. no. 94.176.81 (Fig. 5. 2, Fig. 6. 7).

8. Upper body fragment of a larger slab ¿gurine. Its surface is heavily worn; only the shallow depression of the right eye and the barely visible position of the left eye has survived. The left side bears a series of pinched motifs. Reddish-brown, made from clay tempered with sand. H. 4.3 cm, Th. 2.2 cm. Inv. no. 94.176.52 (Fig. 4. 8). 9.

54

Lower body fragment of a slab ¿gurine with narrow cross-section. No body parts survived on the fragment. The right lower corner bears a zig-zag-like incised motif. Strongly worn. Dark grey, made from clay tempered with sand, grit and some vegetal matter. Restored from its fragments. H. 6.3 cm, Th. 1.1 cm. Inv. no. 94.176.62 (Fig. 4. 9, Fig. 6. 13).

15. Upper body fragment of a larger, oblong slab ¿gurine. The two eyes are indicated by short incisions, the nose by a small knob. There is a small protuberance above the left eye. Made from clay tempered with sand and some vegetal matter. The surface is slightly worn. H. 5.2 cm, Th. (top) 1.9 cm. Inv. no. 94.176.79 (Fig. 5. 3, Fig. 6. 9).

According to the entry in the inventory book, this ¿gurine was a stray ¿nd. However, the ¿eld diary mentions it among the ¿nds recovered from Pit 1–3/Į.

55

23

This pit, which was clearly outlined in the pro¿le, became merged with Pit 6 during the excavation because we were not given permission to enlarge the excavated area.

The ¿nds from Méhtelek

16. Upper body fragment of roughly modelled oblong slab ¿gurine. One eye is indicated by a horizontal incision, the other by an oblique one. A small depression is all that survives of the nose. Dark grey, made from clay tempered with grit and sand. H. 4.1 cm, Th. 2 cm. Inv. no. 94.176.88 (Fig. 5. 4).

26. Almost intact oblong slab ¿gurine, of which only a small upper section is missing. The ¿gurine widens slightly downward. The navel is marked by a shallow round impression. Brown, made from clay tempered with sand and grit. The surface is heavily worn. H. 5.8 cm, Th. (base) 2.2 cm. Inv. no. 94.176.77 (Fig. 5. 14).

17. Torso fragment of an oblong slab ¿gurine. The surface is worn to the extent that nothing survived of the one-time features, if any. Made from clay tempered with vegetal matter and sand. Joined from two pieces. H. 3.8 cm. Inv. no. 94.176.80 (Fig. 5. 5).

Pit 6/Į and Pit I 27. Lower body fragment of a slab ¿gurine. The frontal view is Àat, the horizontal cross-section is oval. The ¿gurine’s modelling technique can be reconstructed from the oblique fracture surface. The smaller inner core was made ¿rst using ¿ne sandy clay onto which a slightly convex outer coating was smoothed. The pubic area is indicated by an incised semicircle and an impressed dot in its centre. Blackish-grey, the interior made from clay tempered with ¿ne sand, grit and ¿nely chopped vegetal matter. The surface coating was carefully smoothed. H. 5 cm, Th. (bottom) 1.7 cm. Inv. no. 94.176.87 (Fig. 4. 11, Fig. 6. 12).

18. Lower body fragment of an oblong slab ¿gurine. The genital is indicated by an impressed dot and an inverted U shaped incision above it. Grey, made from clay tempered with sand, grit and ¿nely chopped vegetal matter. The surface is slightly worn, but traces of smoothing survive. H. 5.1 cm. Inv. no. 94.176.82 (Fig. 5. 6). 19. Torso fragment of an oblong slab ¿gurine. There is no indication of any body parts or organs. The two sides bear a series of incisions. Greyish-brown, made from clay tempered with sand and vegetal matter. W. 3.8 cm, Th. 1.8 cm. Inv. no. 94.176.80 (Fig. 5. 7).

Steatopygous ¿gurines The ¿gurines from Méhtelek are dominated by pieces akin to the steatopygous female ¿gurines modelled in the traditional style known from the Alföld. Most of the ¿gurines in this group are broken and the assemblage includes some very small fragments indeed. Forty ¿gurines could be assigned to this category. One typical feature is the thrown-back head and the Àat face. It is unclear why so many small, headless ¿gurine fragments were deposited in the pits.

20. Lower body fragment of an oblong slab ¿gurine. The front section broke off, only the rear portion has survived. Yellow, made from clay tempered with sand and ¿nely chopped vegetal matter. H. 2.5 cm. Inv. no. 94.176.99 (Fig. 5. 8).

Pit 1–3/ Į 28. Upper body fragment of a steatopygous female ¿gurine. The upper right corner of the triangular, thrown-back head is damaged. The eyes are indicated by two short incisions, the nose by a small knob, the mouth by a semicircular incised line. The two arms are modelled as pointed stumps under the slender neck. The breasts are marked by two pointed knobs. The ¿gurine broke at the waist. Brown, made from clay tempered with sand, mica and some vegetal matter. Worn. H. 7.4 cm. Inv. no. 94.176.66 (Fig. 7. 1).

21. Lower body fragment of an oblong slab ¿gurine, fractured diagonally. The surface is worn, the sides are indented. Made from clay tempered with sand and vegetal matter. H. 3.8 cm. Inv. no. 94.176.94 (Fig. 5. 9). 22. Lower body fragment of an oblong slab ¿gurine. The navel is indicated by an incised dotted circle. Brownishgrey with slight mottling, made from clay tempered with sand. H. 4 cm, Th. 1.6 cm. Inv. no. 94.176.84 (Fig. 5. 10). 23. Large lower body fragment of an oblong slab ¿gurine. The navel is marked by a small round depression near the fracture, the genital by an incised, slightly Àattened circle near the base. Made from clay tempered with sand and vegetal matter. H. 6.7 cm, Th. 1.5 cm. Inv. no. 94.176.87 (Fig. 5. 11).

29. Upper body fragment of a small ¿gurine, of which only one-half survives. A small knob marks the right breast. Only the place of the arm remains. Brown exterior, dark grey core, made from clay tempered with sand. H. 2.7 cm. Uninventoried (Fig. 7. 2).

24. Torso fragment of an oblong slab ¿gurine. Traces of one horizontal and three vertical incisions can be made out at the base. Dark grey, made from clay tempered with sand, pebbles, grit and some vegetal matter. Strongly worn. H. 4.2 cm, Th. 1.8 cm. Inv. no. 94.176.75 (Fig. 5. 12).

30. Left buttock fragment of a steatopygous ¿gurine. The core is dark grey, covered with a thick brown outer layer and a thin dark grey layer. Worn. Made from clay tempered with sand and crushed ceramics. H. 3 cm. Uninventoried (Fig. 7. 3).

25. Lower corner fragment of an oblong slab ¿gurine (perhaps from the left side). The left half of the round impression marking the navel has survived. Greyishbrown, made from clay tempered with sand, pebbles, grit and some vegetal matter. The surface is lightly worn. H. 5.7 cm, Th. 1.7 cm. Inv. no. 94.176.133 (Fig. 5. 13).

31. Left half of a steatopygous ¿gurine with the top of the buttocks. The ¿gurine broke when the right and left half were ¿tted together and the buttocks fell off at the same time. Brown with dark grey core, made from clay tempered with sand and grit. H. 5.1 cm. Uninventoried (Fig. 7. 4). 24

The ¿nds from Méhtelek

32. Left buttock with the top of the thigh of a steatopygous ¿gurine. The basic form of the buttock was modelled from small pellets of clay and then coated with a thick layer of clay. Brown with dark grey core, made from clay tempered with grit. H. 4.7 cm. Uninventoried (Fig. 7. 5).

pieces described under Nos 32 and 35; Fig. 7. 5, 8); the buttocks and the upper part of the body were attached separately. The leg terminates in a stamp seal-like foot and is separate from the other leg. Brownish-grey, with carefully smoothed surface. H. 9.9 cm. Inv. no. 94.176.58 (Fig. 7. 14).

33. Lower body fragment of a steatopygous ¿gurine, representing the right side from the waist down. A small knob denotes the knee, an even smaller one the ankle. The foot-sole is round. The ¿gurine broke at the point where the different body parts were ¿tted together. The legs were separated downward from the thighs. Buffgrey, carefully smoothed. H. 5.5 cm. Inv. no. 94.176.57 (Fig. 7. 6).

42. Foot fragment with the base of the buttocks of a steatopygous ¿gurine. H. 3.5 cm. Inv. no. 94.176.144 (Fig. 15. 11). Pit 4–5/Į 43. Reconstruction of a large ¿gurine. The body part above the right breast and the part below the left breast survived intact, while the head and the arms were missing. The discovery of two other ¿gurine fragments, which were virtually identical to each other, and of a torso fragment enabled the reconstruction of the ¿gurine’s upper body. The breasts are indicated by two small knobs. The ¿gurine has a stocky body with exaggerated buttocks. A deeply incised curved line denotes the pubic area; a deep, vertical groove on the back side denotes the spine. The ¿gurine has an upright posture with the legs clearly separated from each other. The knees and ankles are both indicated. Grey, made from clay tempered with sand, grit and some vegetal matter. The surface is smoothed. H. (broken) 13.9 cm, H. (restored) 18.7 cm. Inv. no. 94.176.86 (Fig. 8. 1a-b).

34. Buttock fragment of a small steatopygous ¿gurine. The core is dark grey, the exterior is brick red. Made from clay tempered with sand and grit. H. 3 cm. Uninventoried (Fig. 6. 7). 35. Left buttock fragment with the top of the thigh of a steatopygous ¿gurine. A shallow cavity for a peg or tenon runs in the middle of the thigh in its interior. Dark grey core, brown exterior, made from clay tempered with sand and some vegetal matter. The surface is slightly worn. H. 7.4 cm. Inv. no. 94.176.58 (Fig. 7. 8). 36. Round foot-sole of a ¿gurine. The foot-sole had been attached to the foot separately, meaning that the feet had been separate from each other. Brown, made from clay tempered with grit and some vegetal matter. Diam. of foot-sole 2.6 cm. Uninventoried (Fig. 7. 9).

44. Prominent right buttock of a steatopygous ¿gurine. The legs terminate in small stumps, the buttocks are low-swung. The ¿gurine broke at the base of the torso. Brown, made from clay tempered with sand, crushed ceramics and some vegetal matter. H. 5 cm. Inv. no. 94.176.71 (Fig. 9. 1).

37. Half foot-sole of a ¿gurine, modelled from small clay pellets, resembling the piece described under No. 36. The edge widens slightly. The feet of the ¿gurine had probably been separate from each other. Brown exterior, dark grey core, made from clay tempered with sand, crushed ceramics and some vegetal matter. Diam. of foot-sole 3.3 cm. Uninventoried (Fig. 7. 10).

45. Upper body fragment with the arms and breasts of a steatopygous ¿gurine. The two pointed stumps representing the arms are set horizontally, the breasts are denoted by two small pointed knobs. Brown, made from clay tempered with sand and chaff. Slightly worn. H. 4 cm. Inv. no. 94.176.97 (Fig. 9. 2).56

38. Low leg with slightly widening sole and the base of the buttocks of a larger ¿gurine. The legs were separate from each other. Brown exterior, blackish-grey core, made from clay tempered with sand and small pebbles. H. 4.6 cm. Inv. no. 94.176.59 (Fig. 7. 11).

46. Upper body fragment of a steatopygous ¿gurine. The thrown-back head is oblong, with the two eyes marked by short stabs, the nose by a small knob. The mouth is denoted by a deep circular impression. The two arms are represented by pointed stumps under the slender neck and two pointed knobs indicate the breasts. The ¿gurine broke at the waist. Brown, made from clay tempered with mica, sand and some vegetal matter. The surface is worn. H. 7.4 cm, Inv. no. 94.176.67 (Fig. 9. 3).

39. Fragment of a left leg with the base of the thigh. The leg broke off at the attachment point. The leg was fashioned from a clay cylinder covered with a clay coating. The knee is indicated by a tiny knob. Brownish-grey exterior, blackish-grey core. H. 4.8 cm. Inv. no. 94.176.85 (Fig. 7. 12).

47. Right buttock with the base of the body and the top of one leg of a steatopygous ¿gurine. The knob perhaps marks the navel or the genital because it is too high to be the indication of the knee. The ¿gurine broke at the point where the different body parts were joined: the small round cavities visible in the fracture perhaps served

40. Left foot and torso fragment of a ¿gurine. The place of the separately modelled and attached buttocks can be clearly made out. Brown exterior, dark grey core, made from clay tempered with sand, grit and some vegetal matter. H. 5.3 cm. Inv. no. 94.176.58 (Fig. 7. 13).

56

41. Left foot and torso fragment of a ¿gurine. The cylindrical body curves slightly forward (resembling the 25

According to the entry in the inventory book, this ¿gurine was a stray ¿nd. However, it came to light in the area between Pits 1–3/Į and 4–5/Į, nearer to Pit 4–5/Į, and thus I have included it among the ¿nds from the latter.

The ¿nds from Méhtelek

to ease the joining of the two parts. Greyish-brown, made from clay tempered with sand, crushed ceramics and chaff. Slightly worn. H. 5.5 cm. Inv. no. 94.176.83 (Fig. 9. 4).

of which only the prominent buttocks survive, were then attached. The short legs terminate in stamp seallike foot-soles. The knee is indicated by a small knob. Dark brown, made from clay tempered with sand and vegetal matter. The surface is slightly worn. Its size and modelling resembles that of No. 53, but the body is more strongly curved. H. 10.7 cm. Inv. no. 94. 176.96 (Fig. 9. 12).

48. Lower body fragment of a steatopygous ¿gurine, of which the prominent buttocks, the short cylindrical legs and Àat soles, and the base of the torso survived. The knee and the ankle are marked by a knob. Made from clay tempered with sand and crushed ceramics. The surface is partially worn. H. 7.6 cm. Inv. no. 94.176.70 (Fig. 9. 5).

56. Upper left side fragment of a small steatopygous ¿gurine on which one breast, the base of the neck and the body part under the breast has survived. The fracture surface reveals that the left side was attached to the right side with a small rod or a piece of reed. The dark grey core is enclosed by a thin layer of clay ¿red to a brown colour. The left breast is denoted by a small knob and the place of the small stump marking the left arm can also be made out. Made from clay tempered with sand and grit. The surface is slightly worn. H. 4.3 cm. Uninventoried (Fig. 10. 1).

49. Right buttock fragment with the top of the thigh of a steatopygous ¿gurine. Brown exterior, grey core, made from clay tempered with sand, crushed ceramics and some vegetal matter. H. 4.8 cm. Uninventoried (Fig. 9. 6). 50. Prominent, almost round buttock fragment of a steatopygous ¿gurine. The piece broke along the vertical groove where the body parts were joined. Light brown exterior, grey core, made from clay tempered with grit. The surface is slightly uneven. H. 2.4 cm. Uninventoried (Fig. 9. 7).

57. Torso fragment from the left side of a small steatopygous ¿gurine. A short, wide incision runs under the small protuberance marking the breast. A narrow furrow runs down the edge of the fragment where it broke off from the right side. The two parts were joined with a small rod or a mussel. Brown exterior, grey core, made from clay tempered with sand. Slightly worn. H. 3.2 cm. Uninventoried (Fig. 10. 2).

51. Buttock fragment with the top of the thigh of a steatopygous ¿gurine. It was modelled from small clay pellets and coated with a layer of smoothed clay. Grey, the exterior made from clay tempered with sand, the interior from clay tempered with sand and grit. H. 3.2 cm. Uninventoried (Fig. 9. 8).

58. Left leg and ankle fragment of a larger ¿gurine. The right and the left leg were separate from each other. The heel has a short horizontal and a vertical smoothed-in line, made before ¿ring. The modelling of the foot-sole corresponds to the form of the foot. Brown exterior, grey core, made from clay tempered with sand and grit. H. 2.8 cm. Uninventoried (Fig. 10. 3a-b).

52. Fragment of the right side cylindrical core of a steatopygous ¿gurine. The buttocks were attached to the grooved part. The knee and the ankle are marked by small knobs. Brown, made from clay tempered with sand and some vegetal matter. Smoothed surface. H. 7.8 cm. Inv. no. 94.176. 74 (Fig. 9. 9).

59. Fragment of a steatopygous ¿gurine of which the buttocks and the top of the leg survive. Dark grey, made from clay tempered with sand and vegetal matter. Worn. H. 4.4 cm. Inv. no. 94.176. 132 (Fig. 10. 4).

53. Right buttock fragment with the base of the torso and part of the leg of a steatopygous ¿gurine. The outer layer of clay broke off along a small section. There is a deep groove where the different body parts were ¿tted together. Brown, made from clay tempered with sand, grit and some vegetal matter. Slightly worn. H. 8.5 cm. Inv. no. 94.176.78 (Fig. 9. 10).

60. Leg fragment with the thigh and the upper part of the shin of a steatopygous ¿gurine. The knee is marked with a small knob. Dark grey. H. 4.5 cm. Inv. no. 94.176.132 (Fig. 10. 7). Pit 6/Į 61. Long cylindrical leg with the base of the buttock of a large steatopygous ¿gurine. The knee is marked by a small knob. The foot-sole widens slightly. The exterior is brown, the core is of a lighter colour. The exterior layer of clay was tempered with vegetal matter, the core was made from clay tempered with sand. Worn. H. 9.1 cm, diam. of foot-sole 3.5 cm. Inv. no. 94.176.92 (Fig. 10. 5).

54. Larger left side fragment of a steatopygous ¿gurine. The pre-modelled clay cylinder forming the ¿gurine’s core was bent slightly forward and the other body parts, of which only the prominent buttocks survive, were then attached. The short legs terminate in stamp seal-like foot-soles. The knee is indicated by a small knob. Dark brown, made from clay tempered with sand and vegetal matter. The surface is slightly worn. H. 10.7 cm. Inv. no. 94. 176.89 (Fig. 9. 11).

Pit 7/Į 62. Fragment of a steatopygous ¿gurine. The body parts were attached to a curved clay cylinder. The buttocks were low-swung judging from the position of the fracture. The knee is indicated by a small knob. Light

55. Larger left side fragment of a steatopygous ¿gurine. The pre-modelled clay cylinder forming the ¿gurine’s core was bent more strongly forward than in the case of the piece described under No. 53, and the other body parts, 26

The ¿nds from Méhtelek

grey exterior, dark grey core, made from clay tempered with sand and vegetal matter. Smoothed; slightly worn. H. 5.1 cm. Uninventoried (Fig. 10. 6).

semicircles and combinations of vertical and horizontal lines. The circles and U shaped marks can perhaps be interpreted as symbolising the female genital, while the three vertical lines hanging from a horizontal line as denoting the male organ. The coiffure, an important element, was often indicated by impressed dots (Fig. 4. 1, 3, 6). The inverted V shaped incision above the nose remains an enigmatic element whose meaning remains to be deciphered (Fig. 4. 2, 4, 13, Fig. 5. 1). The interpretation of the oblong slab ¿gurines is still controversial and there is no consensus on whether they portrayed the entire body or the head only. The known parallels, such as the piece from Vinkovci in Croatia (Fig. 11. 27), would suggest that these statuettes depicted the entire human body.57 The overwhelming majority of the Méhtelek type ¿gurines are carefully made pieces; no more than a handful have a rough modelling on which the human features can barely be made out. It is quite evident from the above that the oblong slab ¿gurines represent one of the hallmarks of the ¿nds from Méhtelek. The search for similar pieces revealed that in terms of their size, form and modelling, these curious human ¿gurines comprise not only the strictly oblong shaped Àat pieces, but also the ones modelled with rounded corners, as well as ¿gurines with a thick rectangular section and specimens with an oval or round section. It seems to me that despite smaller variations, these ¿gurines were expressions of the same ideas in view of their size, the degree of schematism and the many resemblances in depiction. In my view, the socalled rod ¿gurines can likewise be assigned to this category. A few parallels to the curious ¿gurines from Méhtelek were already listed in the preliminary report on the site. At the time of the excavations, we did not know of any comparable pieces from among the Körös ¿nd assemblages in the southern Alföld. The search for similar pieces led to eastward to Transylvania and to Bulgaria, where astonishingly similar oblong ¿gurines were brought to light. Comparable human ¿gurines carved from stone slabs came to light at Hacilar in Anatolia even farther east.58 Countless oblong and highly stylised ¿gurines of this type have been unearthed during the past three and a half decades in the vast area between Méhtelek and Bulgaria. However, small sculptures of this type are not known farther south and thus the possible links with the stone ¿gurines from Hacilar assumed earlier can probably be rejected. At the same time, the striking resemblances between the pieces from Méhtelek and Bulgaria have turned out to be much stronger than previously believed. Three signi¿cant studies appeared on oblong slab ¿gurines following the publication of the preliminary report on the excavations at Méhtelek, all three discussing possibly related pieces, with a focus on cultural contacts and interaction with neighbouring and more distant regions. Pál Raczky published a wealth of data on the distribution of oblong slab ¿gurines between Méhtelek and Bulgaria in his study on the human and animal ¿gurines and depictions from the broader Szolnok area.59 He identi¿ed ¿ve ¿gurines of the Méhtelek type among the then unpublished ¿nds from Azmak

63. Lower left half of a steatopygous ¿gurine with the base of the forward-curving upper body. The buttocks are less prominent, the leg terminates in a stamp-seal like foot. Brownish-grey, made from clay tempered with sand and some vegetal matter. H. 11.4 cm. Inv. no. 94.176.96 (Fig. 10. 11). 64. Left side fragment of a steatopygous ¿gurine of which a part of the torso and the downward widening short leg survive. The body is straight with prominent buttocks. Grey with mottling. The surface is smooth. H. 7.4 cm, diam. of foot-sole 2.4 cm. Inv. no. 94.176.95 (Fig. 10. 12). Pit 7/ȕ 65. Two halves of a steatopygous ¿gurine, recovered from the same pit. The ¿gurine has prominent buttocks and the base of the torso has also survived. The two separate legs terminate in a Àat foot. Blackish-grey, made from clay tempered with sand and vegetal matter. Smoothed, with slightly worn surface. H. 7.4 cm. Inv. no. 94.176.93/1–2 (Fig. 10. 10). Pit III 66. Lower left half of a steatopygous ¿gurine. The buttock merges into the strongly tapering leg, which terminates in a slightly widening foot. The knee is marked by a small knob. Brown, made from clay tempered with sand. H. 4.3 cm. Inv. no. 94.176.68 (Fig. 10. 8). 67. Foot fragment with the base of the buttock of a steatopygous ¿gurine. Light brown, made from clay tempered with sand, grit and some vegetal matter. The surface is smoothed. H. 8.9 cm. Inv. no. 94.176.69 (Fig. 10. 9). Main characteristics of the Méhtelek type and related oblong slab ¿gurines The Méhtelek type slab ¿gurines are characterised by expressly sharp contours or a slightly rounded oblong form. Several variants can be distinguished among this main type. Six intact (Fig. 4. 1–4, 6, 10, Fig. 5. 2, Fig. 6. 1–2, 4, 6–7, 11) and several upper and lower body fragments (Fig. 4. 5, 7–9, 12, Fig. 5. 1, 3–4, 6, 8–14, Fig. 6. 3, 8–10, 13) represent the classical type with rectangular body. Two torso fragments can also be assigned here (Fig. 5. 5, 7). One intact and several broken ¿gurines have slightly or more strongly rounded corners (Fig. 4. 3, 7, 10, Fig. 6. 3). One oval specimen too displays the main traits of this ¿gurine type (Fig. 4. 13, Fig. 6. 11), as does a miniature variant (Fig. 4. 6, Fig. 6. 2) and a piece with an oval section (Fig. 4. 11, Fig. 6. 12). Most of the oblong slab ¿gurines widen slightly downward (Fig. 6. 1–13). The single prismatic ¿gurine is unique in that it bears a face portrayal at each end and thus embodies two beings (Fig. 4. 4, Fig. 6. 5). The human features of the highly schematised ¿gurines are denoted by the moulded nose, the incisions and impressions marking the eyes, the impressed or incised navel and the genitals marked by a variety of impressed or incised circles,

Dimitrijeviü 1979, Pl. 41. 6; Hansen 2007, Taf. 110. 3. However, the similar ¿gurines from Kunszentmárton and Szentes can equally well be interpreted as portraying the head only (Makkay 1993, 73–74, Fig. 3. 1a-d, 4a-c). 58 Mellaart 1970, Pl. 220. a-b, Pl. 221. a-c, Fig. 511. 1–3, Fig. 512. 1–2. 59 Raczky 1979–1980, 14. 57

27

The ¿nds from Méhtelek

during a study trip to Bulgaria.60 In his view, the oblong form was one of the main criteria of this ¿gurine type. He noted that the type was unknown in the central and southern Alföld distribution of the Körös culture.61 At the same, Raczky assigned the small ¿gurines with oval or round section, which in my opinion were conceived in the same spirit and expressed the same meaning, to a separate group. In his discussion of the ¿gurine found at Tiszaug,62 Raczky noted the resemblance with the oblong pieces from Méhtelek and quoted several comparable ¿gurines from HódmezĘvásárhely–Zsoldos tanya, Dévaványa and Röszke.63 It seems to me that the above ¿gurines with oval and round section can be assigned to the Méhtelek type owing to their formal traits and similarity of meaning, and thus a few blank spots in their distribution between Méhtelek and Bulgaria can be ¿lled. The other study on Early Neolithic ¿gurines which touched on the problems concerning the ¿gurines of the Méhtelek type was written by János Makkay for the memorial volume dedicated to Georgi I. Georgiev.64 He interpreted the fragment of a probably oblong stone slab from the Szarvas 23 site as a ¿gurine and dated it to the late phase of the Early Neolithic.65 He assigned several highly schematised ¿gurines and ¿gurine heads from Szarvas 23 and EndrĘd 39 to the category of rod ¿gurines.66 He described the near-identical Méhtelek type ¿gurines with slightly curved, convex side and round section from Kunszentmárton and the Szentes area (Fig. 11. 7–8) as being barrel shaped and assigned them to the Méhtelek type oblong ¿gurines, noting that good parallels to these pieces can be quoted from the Karanovo complex.67 Citing Rumen Katinþarov, he mentioned that several Méhtelek type ¿gurines came to light at Kazanlik, a settlement dated to the Karanovo I–II period.68 Makkay’s study provided fresh evidence for the earlier assumed link between Méhtelek and Bulgaria. The third major study by Svend Hansen offers a systematic overview of the human ¿gurines from Anatolia and Europe, including a detailed visual presentation of the Méhtelek type ¿gurines and related pieces.69 Hansen did not dwell at greater length on questions of origin and interpretation. He introduced the label Méhtelek type, which in his categorisation included also the pieces with a prismatic and round section. He dated the use and manufacture of these ¿gurines to the Early Neolithic. Even though Hansen’s distribution map shows but few of the sites yielding Méhtelek type ¿gurines, the presence of these pieces across the vast area from Méhtelek to Bulgaria is undeniable.70 Hansen notes that it is dif¿cult to determine whether these ¿gurines portrayed the entire body or the head only. While he believed that both interpretations were acceptable, the examination of related pieces rather suggests that the oblong form incorporated the entire human body. Quoting Pál Raczky and Alexandra Anders,71 Hansen argued that the Méhtelek type ¿gurines should not be regarded as a

local variant, but be seen as a reÀection of cultural contacts in which the trade in obsidian played a key role. While this is certainly possible, it must be borne in mind that the use of obsidian appears to have been minimal in the Central Balkans and especially in Bulgaria.72 Little has been written about the origins of the Méhtelek type ¿gurines. In our preliminary report on the Méhtelek site, we suggested that the Méhtelek type ¿gurines can perhaps be derived from the kindred pieces of Bulgaria and the Gura Baciului/Bácsitorok site in Transylvania dating from the earliest Neolithic, although we regarded the cultural impact of local precedents more likely. Similar ¿gurines had perhaps been initially carved from wood,73 as shown by the slab ¿gurine carved from stone brought to light at the Szarvas 23 site. This possibility can hardly by rejected out of hand. The distribution of Méhtelek type oblong slab ¿gurines and related pieces in the Carpathian Basin and the Balkans In contrast to earlier speculations, ¿gurines resembling the Méhtelek type have since been found in the southerly regions of the Körös distribution. Their size rarely exceeds 8–9 cm, with most having a height between 5 and 7 cm. The main difference between these pieces and the ones from Méhtelek is that their body is thicker, the corners are rounded and the body has a round or oval section. The main features of the portrayal, however, are virtually identical with or closely allied to the Méhtelek ¿gurines in that the human body is compressed into the oblong slab, without any indication of arms and legs – only the moulded nose juts out from ¿gurine. One ¿gurine of this type, probably dating from the late Körös period, was unearthed at Dévaványa–Réhelyi-gát (Fig. 11. 10),74 while two specimens came to light at the Szarvas 23 site, dating from the earliest Körös period (Fig. 11. 6),75 disregarding the incised, rectangular stone fragment.76 The piece from EndrĘd 39 can also be assigned to this group despite its rough modelling.77 Raczky published a similarly crudely made slab ¿gurine from Tiszaug (Fig. 11. 9).78 The elongated conical fragment from Röszke can also be assigned here (Fig. 11. 11).79 The settlement at Dudeúti Veche/ÓbesenyĘ/Beúenova veche in Romania is an Early Neolithic site in the Banat whose artefactual material shares many similarities with the Alföld Körös culture.80 The ¿nds from the site include several oblong slab ¿gurines of the Méhtelek type (Fig. 11. 14, 15a-b, 16),81 Tripkoviü 2003–2004, Fig. 1. Boban Tripkoviü believes that there were obsidian deposits in the Central Balkans, originating from the region’s volcanic mountains. In his view, these deposits were either insigni¿cant or virtually inaccessible or had been exhausted by the end of the Neolithic. However, geological studies have not furnished any conclusive proof for the exploitation of local deposits. 73 Kalicz–Makkay 1976, 19. 74 Ecsedy 1972, Pl. 55. 2. 75 Makkay 1993, Fig. 2. 3a-b. 76 Makkay 1993, 73, Abb. 2. 2a-c. 77 Makkay 1993, Abb. 3. 2a-c; Makkay 2007, Fig. 65. 4. 78 Raczky 1979–1980, Fig. 10. 4. 79 Trogmayer 2003, Fig. 6. 3; Korek 1972, Taf. 5. 3. The circle incised on the lower part of the Röszke ¿gurine can be clearly made out on the photo published in the Vienna catalogue (Korek 1972, Taf. 5. 3). This motif is barely visible on the photo published by Trogmayer 2003, Fig. 6. 3 and on the drawing appearing in Trogmayer et al. 2005, Fig. 8. 80 Kisléghi Nagy 1911. 81 Lazarovici 1975, Pl. 4. 1–2; Lazarovici 1976, Pl. 4. 1–2; Lazarovici 1979, Pl. 10. 3–7. During a personal meeting, Gheorghe Lazarovici told me that he had discovered a drawing of the oblong slab ¿gurines in the inventory book. These ¿gurines had not been published previously. 72

Raczky 1979–1980, note 44. Raczky 1979–1980, 14. 62 Raczky 1979–1980, Fig. 10. 4. 63 Raczky 1979–80, 15, notes 95–102; Ecsedy 1972, Taf. 55. 2; Korek 1972, Taf. 5. 3; Kutzián 1944, Pl. 43. 9, 11. 64 Makkay 1993. 65 Makkay 1993, 73, Abb. 2. 2a-b. 66 Makkay 1993, Abb. 2. 3a-b, Abb. 3. 2a-c, 3a-c . 67 Makkay 1993, 73–74, Abb. 3. 1a-d, 4.a-c. 68 Makkay 1993, note 7, with a list of analogous ¿gurines from Bulgaria. 69 Hansen 2007, 143–145. 70 Hansen 2007, 144, Abb. 56. 71 Raczky–Anders 2003, 162. 60 61

28

The ¿nds from Méhtelek

as well as an elongated conical variant (Fig. 11. 13).82 A cylindrical ¿gurine with Àattened front was recovered from a late Körös–Vinþa A context at Timiúoara/Temesvár–Fratelia/ Freidorf (Fig. 11. 17).83 The Méhtelek type and related ¿gurines remained in use well after the decline of the Körös culture. In the southern Alföld, the use of the cylindrical variant at Ószentiván (today known as Tiszasziget) can be traced up to the appearance of the Vinþa culture (Fig. 11. 12).84 Lazarovici dated the comparable oblong ¿gurines from Gornea to this phase (better said, to the Starþevo IV–Vinþa A phase as de¿ned by him; Fig. 11. 18a-c).85 Countless late variants with a cylindrical body and thrown-back head can be quoted from the Vinþa– Tordos culture succeeding the Körös sequence.86 The two barrel shaped, virtually identical ¿gurines of the southern Alföld Körös culture from Kunszentmárton (Fig. 11. 7a-b)87 and Szentes (Fig. 11. 8)88 can likewise be assigned to this group. Cylindrical ¿gurines and variants with a widening, conical body, whose main features correspond to those of the Méhtelek type (solid body on which the nose is the single moulded element), can also be assigned to this group. Owing to their similarity to the pieces from Méhtelek, Raczky likened the two cylindrical or rod shaped ¿gurines from HódmezĘvásárhely–Zsoldos-tanya and Röszke to the Àat specimens used by the Méhtelek group.89 During his investigation of the HódmezĘvásárhely–Zsoldos tanya site, János Banner found two simple cylindrical, so-called rod ¿gurines assumed to have a phallic nature,90 which can be ¿tted into the Méhtelek type. Another comparable ¿gurine on which the genital was marked by an incised circle came to light at Röszke from a pit containing several tens of thousands of pottery sherds (Fig. 11. 11). The ¿rst oblong slab ¿gurines from Carpatho-Ukraine, a fragmentary and an intact piece (Fig. 11. 1–2), were published from Zastavna–Mala hora/Zápszony–Kishegy.91 One of the best-known sites of the Méhtelek group in north-western Transylvania was investigated at Zăuan/Szilágyzovány in County Sălaj/Szilágy, whose ¿nds included both steatopygous ¿gurines and an oblong or, better said, elongated, prismatic piece portraying the entire body and not merely the head (Fig. 11. 3).92 Lying slightly to the south, the settlement at PorĠ “Corău” in County Sălaj/Silágy too yielded round ¿gurines representing a variant of the Méhtelek type (Fig. 11. 4a-b).93 The ¿nds from yet another nearby site, Suplacu de Barcău/ Berettyószéplak, likewise comprised several similar ¿gurines with comparable impressed motifs on their lower half. Doina IgnaĠ dated the ¿gurines to the Middle and Late Neolithic on the strength of the pottery they came to light with94 and

Hansen too presented these ¿nds among the ¿gurines of the Middle and Late Neolithic.95 The earliest ¿gurine of the Méhtelek type is the oblong ¿gurine from Gura Baciului/Bácsitorok (Fig. 11. 5).96 The small ¿gurines from Ocna Sibiului/Vízakna, which can only be tentatively assigned to the Méhtelek type, were recovered from under the ruins of a house dating from the roughly the same period. One of them has a separate table-like base, another resembles the roughly modelled piece from EndrĘd.97 Moving beyond Transylvania, two ¿gurines of the Méhtelek type have been reported from the renowned site at Cârcea–La Hanuri. One is rectangular, the other is modelled in the shape of a thick cylinder (Fig. 11. 19a-b, 20a-b).98 The settlement at Grădinile in Oltenia yielded painted wares of the Early Neolithic, as well as an oblong ¿gurine of the Méhtelek type (Fig. 11. 21).99 The type survived into the early Dudeúti period in Oltenia.100 Several ¿gurines of the Méhtelek type have been recovered from Criú contexts in Moldavia. One curious piece is the cylindrical specimen from Balú (Fig. 11. 24a-b),101 which has much in common with the ¿gurine bearing a face depiction at both ends from Méhtelek. A human face is incised on the ¿gurine’s Àat top and a face depiction combined with two breasts on the lower half of the body. The depiction of the hair on the ¿gurine’s back at both ends supports the interpretation of a two-headed portrayal. The highest number of ¿gurines representing the Méhtelek type came to light at Trestiana. Even though these have an elongated conical form with a round section, their main traits correspond to the oblong pieces from Méhtelek (Fig. 11. 22, 23a-b).102 In Croatia, the single known ¿gurine of this type has been reported from Vinkovci in eastern Slavonia. It has an elongated conical body and resembles the oblong pieces to some extent (Fig. 11. 27a-b).103 Two sites are known to me from the Voivodina in Serbia, whose ¿gurines bear some resemblance to the pieces from Méhtelek. These pieces represent the greatest deviation from the oblong slab ¿gurines. The ¿gurines from Donja Branjevina (Mostonga) can be assigned to different variants: one has a rounded head and a large open mouth,104 resembling the pieces published by Makkay and Nica, another has a cylindrical body and a thrown-back head,105 while a third fragment has a conical, hollow body.106 A fourth prismatic fragment can perhaps be tentatively assigned to the Méhtelek type, even though the head is missing.107 The other site yielding a ¿gurine of the Méhtelek type is Drenovac in the Morava Valley, where a round sectioned ¿gurine came to light.108 Hansen 2007, 198, Taf. 240. 1, 5–7, 9–11, 13–14. Vlassa 1972, Abb. 13. 5; Hansen 2007, Taf. 133. 1, in a restored condition. 97 Paul 1995, Taf. 9. a-d, Taf. 21. 1; Hansen 2007, Abb. 57. 2, Abb. 58. 1; Makkay 1993, Abb. 3. 2a-c. 98 Nica 1977, Fig. 4. 1 = Fig. 12. 1–2; Hansen 2007, Taf. 132. 5–6, Taf. 133. 4. 99 Nica 1981, Fig. 5. 1; Hansen 2007, Taf. 133. 3 = Taf. 171. 2. The site is Grădinile. The exact location of the site at Cârcea is not Viaduct, but La Hanuri. 100 Nica 1976, Fig. 16. 1, 4–5. 101 Popuúoi 1980, Fig. 12. 102 Popuúoi 2005, Fig. 41. 1, Fig. 42. 1, Fig. 43. 3, Fig. 50. 1, Fig. 118. 4–5, Fig. 119. 2. 103 Dimitrijeviü 1979, Pl. 44; Hansen 2007, Taf. 110. 3. 104 Karmanski 1990, Pl. 2. 5. 105 Karmanski1968, Fig. 15a-b; Karmanski 1975, Pl. 44. 1; Karmanski 2005, Pl. 15. 1a-c. 106 Karmanski 1988, Pl. 1. 6. 107 Karmanski 1975, Pl. 46. 2a-d; Karmanski 2005, Pl. 20. 1a-d. 108 Vetniü 1990, Pl. 3. 1–3. 95 96

Lazarovici 1975. Pl. 10. 2. Draúovean 1990, 4. 5. 10; Draúovean 2006, Pl. 2. 10. 84 Banner–Párducz 1946–48, 26, Fig. 4. 85 Lazarovici 1973, Pl. 7. 7a-c; Lazarovici 1977, Pl. 65. 7a-c; Lazarovici 1979, Pl. 20A. 7a-c. 86 Roska 1941, Pl. 137. 14–16, Pl. 139. 1–4. 87 Raczky 1982, Fig. 4; Makkay 1993, Abb. 3. 1a-d. 88 Makkay 1993, Abb. 3. 4a-c. 89 Raczky 1979–1980, 19, note 79. 90 Banner 1932, Pl. 9. 5, 8; Kutzián 1944, 1947, Pl. 43. 9, 11. 91 Pothusniak 1985, Fig. 37. 11; for another similar, virtually intact piece, cp. Pothusniak 2004. Fig. 9b. 44, 100. 92 Lakó 1978, Pl. 7; Lazarovici 1980, Fig. 4. 3; Hansen 2007, Abb. 51. 2. 93 BăcueĠ-Criúan–Cârstea 2004, Pl. 2.3a-d. 94 IgnaĠ 1998, 122–124, Fig. 34. 6–8, Fig. 36. 8–9, Fig. 41. 1, 6. 82 83

29

The ¿nds from Méhtelek

The catalogue of the Méhtelek ¿gurines clearly reveals that in addition to the classical oblong slab variant, pieces with a prismatic section or a thick oval section occur alongside pieces with a more or less oval frontal view. Other sites yielded barrel shaped and simple or elongated conical variants with a round section which can also be assigned to the ¿gurines of the Méhtelek type. The shared traits of these ¿gurines include the highly schematised modelling, the indication of the eyes and the moulded nose. Another speci¿c feature is the depiction of the coiffure by a variety of incised motifs. The mouth is usually lacking, although some pieces have a round depression marking the mouth.124 A deeply impressed mouth is encountered on other ¿gurine types too, for example on steatopygous pieces. The navel and the genitals are frequently marked by a round depression and incisions. In contrast, arms and legs are never indicated, which led Makkay, Pavúk, ýochadžiev and Hansen to suggest that the small oblong ¿gurines did not portray the entire body, merely the head.125 Although one can hardly pronounce a ¿nal verdict on this issue exactly because of the extremely schematic modelling, this possibility can hardly be ruled out, and a duality of meaning can also be assumed (the ¿gurine was meant to portray the entire body which incorporated the head too).126 Makkay suggested that the incised lines under the mouth on some pieces perhaps symbolised the beard, a male trait. Another male characteristic can perhaps be assumed in the combination of one horizontal and three vertical lines for depicting the male genital. Despite the high degree of schematism, the oblong slab ¿gurines and the related pieces appear to have portrayed the entire body. The oblong pieces brought to light during excavations were usually found together with steatopygous ¿gurines which undeniably portray women. It has therefore been suggested that the oblong ¿gurines were perhaps intended to embody men, the other sex. I too assumed that some of the pieces from Méhtelek represented men, although not in every case. This issue can hardly be conclusively resolved owing to the extreme schematism of the ¿gurines. As mentioned in the above, some prehistorians believe that the ¿gurines actually portray the head only, and Makkay even claimed that the ¿gurines represent male heads.127 If this were indeed the case, the Méhtelek settlement would be the ¿rst site where the proportion of male portrayals is so high, accounting for 42 per cent of the human depictions (twenty-seven oblong as opposed to forty steatopygous ¿gurines). In this case, we would also have to address the question of why such a high number of ¿gurines, including oblong ones, were made at this small settlement. None of the other, more extensively excavated Körös–Starþevo–Criú sites yielded such a high number of intact and fragmentary ¿gurines. One possible answer is that the Méhtelek site perhaps played an important role in the cult life of the Méhtelek group. One puzzling aspect of the oblong ¿gurines is that they principally occur in the distribution of the Méhtelek group, in western Bulgaria and in Thrace. A few comparable pieces are known from Oltenia (in the Olt and Zsil Valleys), Transylvania

When we wrote the preliminary report on the Méhtelek site and its ¿nds, it came as a surprise that the best parallels to the oblong slab ¿gurines were to be found in Bulgaria. The corpus of ¿gurines has grown considerably and the pieces discovered since then have con¿rmed the link between the two regions. The ¿rst Bulgarian ¿gurines of this type were published by Georgi I. Georgiev from Boretz (Fig. 11. 39a-b) and Burgas in southern Bulgaria (Fig. 11. 40a-b).109 Peter Detev presented two oblong ¿gurines from Jasa Tepe (Fig. 11. 41a-b, 42).110 Both pieces date from the Early Neolithic. Another ¿gurine of this type comes from Azmaska Mogila in Thrace (Fig. 11. 37a-b).111 In his study on ¿gurines, Raczky mentions that he had personally seen ¿ve oblong slab ¿gurines among the ¿nds from the site.112 Good parallels to the ¿gurines were found at Rakitovo in south-western Bulgaria (Fig. 11. 30),113 where a conical variant also came to light (Fig. 11. 29).114 Oblong ¿gurines bearing a striking resemblance to the pieces from Méhtelek have been published from two sites near each other in western Bulgaria: three oblong ¿gurines (Fig. 11. 33– 34, 35a-b),115 as well as a cylindrical variant from Gălăbnik (Fig. 11. 32),116 and one from Pernik (Fig. 11. 36a-b).117 A loom-weight, whose shape resembles an oblong ¿gurine from the latter site, must also be mentioned.118 Among the numerous ¿gurines from So¿a–Slatina is a piece with an oval section resembling the pieces from Méhtelek (Fig. 11. 28a-b).119 Not one single oblong slab ¿gurine is known to me from Kazanlik, even though Katinþarov claimed that several ¿gurines of this type had been found at the site.120 A ¿gurine with an oval section from the Early Neolithic deposit at ýavdar recalls the pieces from Méhtelek.121 An oblong ¿gurine has also been reported from Mursalevo (Fig. 11. 38a-b),122 and Layer II of the Karanovo settlement too yielded a typical ¿gurine of the Méhtelek type (Fig. 11. 31a-b).123 I am aware that the above overview is incomplete, especially in the light of the many still unpublished Méhtelek type ¿gurines from Bulgaria, whose existence is known from a handful of scattered references in various publications. Even so, the above brief survey was not an idle exercise because it has enlarged the corpus of known ¿gurines and thus hopefully offers a good starting point for later studies. However, the boundaries of the ¿gurines’ distribution have remained unchanged and still conform to the one outlined in the preliminary report (Fig. 12) despite the discovery of a few oblong slab ¿gurines in the Ancient Near East and Anatolia because the possible relation of the latter to the Méhtelek type ¿gurines of South-East Europe remains uncertain. Georgiev 1958, Figs 1–2. Detev 1959, Fig. 55. b; Detev 1960, Fig. 33, lower left. 111 Höckmann 1968, II, 99, Pl, 33, Cat. no. 1084. 112 Raczky 1979–80, note 44. 113 Raduncheva 1976, Fig. 53; Hansen 2007, Taf. 169. 9. 114 Raduncheva 1976, Fig. 50; Vajsov 1993, Fig. 81. 2. 115 Busch 1981, Cat. no. 89a-b; ýɨhadžiev 1983, Fig. 33. 2; Pavúk–ýohadžiev 1984, Fig. 16. 2a-c, 3a-c; Todorova–Vajsov 1993, Fig. 173. 1–2; Hansen 2007, Taf. 167. 1–2. 116 Hansen 2007, Taf. 162. 1. 117 ýohadžiev 1983, Fig. 33. 2; Busch 1981, Cat. no. 72; Todorova–Vajsov 1993, Fig. 173. 3; Hansen 2007, Taf. 164. 3. 118 Busch 1981, Cat. no. 71; Hansen 2007, Taf. 163. 119 Nikolov 1992, Fig. 9; Hansen 2007, Taf. 165. 5. 3. 120 Makkay 1993, note 7. 121 Georgiev 1981, Fig. 56. a-b. 122 Hansen 2007, Taf. 167. 3. 123 Hansen 2007, Taf. 168. 4–5. 109

110

In contrast to János Makkay’s view (Makkay 1993, 74), Svend Hansen argued that mouth depictions of this type could have been a reÀection of differing beliefs (Hansen 2007, 143, note 100). 125 Makkay 1993, 73–74; Pavúk–ýochadžiev 1984, 210; Hansen 2007, 143. 126 For the duality of meaning, cp. Domboróczki 2005a; PavlĤ 1966. 127 Makkay 1993, 73–74. 124

30

The ¿nds from Méhtelek

Steatopygous ¿gurines in the distribution of the Méhtelek group The uniqueness of the Méhtelek settlement lies not only in the presence and high number of oblong ¿gurines, but also in the abundance of “traditional” steatopygous ¿gurines and their fragments (forty pieces, accounting for 57.8 per cent of the ¿gurines; Figs 7–10). The steatopygous ¿gurines represented a canonised form of female depictions from the Aegean to the northern Alföld. The ¿gurines from Méhtelek, and those of the Méhtelek group in general, have a head form and arms differing from the pieces used by the group’s cultural neighbours. The neck is short or medium long and blends into the slightly tapering body. Set atop the neck from which it is visibly separated is the oval, oblong or triangular head with a moulded nose, incised or impressed eyes and, occasionally, an impressed mouth. In contrast, the head of the Körös ¿gurines from the Alföld is not separated in any way from the long cylindrical or angular neck/body and it is only recognisable from the moulded nose and the markings indicating the eyes, the mouth and, in some cases, the coiffure. There is a notable difference in the way the head is held: the thrown-back head and the Àat face from which the eyes gaze upward can ¿rst be noted among the steatopygous ¿gurines from Méhtelek. The clearly separate head and neck are combined with de¿nite breasts and abbreviated stumps for arms, as well as prominent buttocks emphasizing the female nature. The short stocky legs are usually separated from the torso and taper downward, meaning that these ¿gurines could not be set upright without some kind of support. It must be repeatedly emphasized that the steatopygous ¿gurines from Méhtelek differ from those of the Alföld not only regarding the modelling of the head, but also of the entire upper body. The intact ¿gurine from Dyakovo/Gyakovo in Carpatho-Ukraine (Fig. 57) represents the same type and can therefore be assigned to the Méhtelek group,132 The large reconstructed ¿gurine (Fig. 8) and the upper body fragments from Méhtelek are exact counterparts of the piece from Dyakovo/Gyakovo. Alongside oblong slab ¿gurines, (Fig. 11. 1–2),133 steatopygous ¿gurines of the same type with a virtually identical head form have been brought to light at Zastavne–Malá Hora/Zápszony–Kishegy and Rivne/ Szernye–KismezĘ, both settlements of the Méhtelek group in Carpatho-Ukraine,134 as well as at Homorodul de Sus/ FelsĘhomoród in north-western Transylvania.135 These sites also yielded cylindrical or rod ¿gurines with spread arms, the most widespread type in the Alföld. The use of both types can be noted at Zăuan/Szilágyzovány in County Szilágy/Sălaj,136 alongside oblong pieces (Fig. 11. 3).137 Recent excavations at PorĠ “Corău” yielded ¿gurines with upward-gazing Àat face and specimens with an elongated body/neck (Fig. 11. 4),138 as well as oblong pieces.139 It would appear that oblong slab ¿gurines are lacking in the Bihar region, where the preferred type was the steatopygous ¿gurine with decidedly separate, thrown-back head, elongated body, short stumps for arms and breast marked by tiny knobs, such as the specimens from the

and the Tisza Valley, as well as from Romanian Moldavia, eastern Slavonia and the Morava Valley (Figs 11–12). The striking resemblance between the ¿gurines can hardly be explained by the obsidian trade because obsidian was hardly used in Bulgaria. It would appear that some other explanation must be sought for the appearance of these curious ¿gurines in regions lying far from each other. While it has been suggested that oblong slab ¿gurines were ¿rst produced in Bulgaria, and not in the distribution of the Méhtelek group, I believe that these ¿gurine types were ¿rst made in the later distribution of the Méhtelek group during pre-Neolithic times, perhaps from wood or some other organic material, because oblong slab ¿gurines occur most frequently on sites in the eastern half of the Carpathian Basin. The oblong slab ¿gurines are one reÀection of the contacts between Bulgaria, Oltenia, Transylvania and the eastern Alföld. However, three exceptions can be cited: Donja Branjevina in the Voivodina, Vinkovci in eastern Slavonia and Drenovac in the Morava Valley, all three of which yielded the cylindrical or elongated conical variant. Interestingly enough. the fragmentation of ¿gurines, which can be observed throughout the Neolithic,128 was less typical for the oblong slab ¿gurines. Eight of the twenty-seven oblong ¿gurines at Méhtelek were intact, the remaining nineteen pieces were fragmentary. In contrast, all forty steatopygous ¿gurines were broken. One possible explanation for this may be that being solid, compact pieces, the oblong slab ¿gurines were less likely to break. At the same time, the ¿nd contexts would suggest that the intact pieces were not treated any differently than the broken ones, seeing that all came to light from refuse pits together with pottery fragments. It seems likely that the oblong slab ¿gurines too expressed some religious, symbolic belief and that they were used in rituals. Their manufacture and use spanned the Early Neolithic (from the earliest painted Körös–Criú phase and the Karanovo I period) to the onset of the Middle Neolithic (Vinþa A). We pointed out in the preliminary report that the oblong slab ¿gurines of the Méhtelek type survived in a slightly altered form into the Middle Neolithic ALP period in the north-eastern Alföld, the very region where the Méhtelek type had appeared.129 The survival of the type is evidenced also by the high number of human ¿gurines created during the Szatmár period representing the earliest ALP period (Szatmár II). These pieces are characterised by an oblong body and the emphatically or less markedly separate triangular or semicircular head.130 It seems likely that ¿gurines with an oblong or similar body but a separate head were inspired by the tradition of the oblong ¿gurines of the Méhtelek type.131

Chapman 2001. Kalicz–Makkay 1976, 22–23. 130 Kalicz–Koós 1997a, Abb., 13–14, Cat. nos 1–18 ; Kalicz–Koós 1997b, Abb. 4. 1–7; Kalicz–Koós 2001, Abb. 14. 2–5, Abb. 15. 1–5, 8–10; Domboróczki 1997, Fig. 2, Cat. nos 25–29, 55–59; Domboróczki 1999, Fig. 16. 131 The ¿gurines found in Szatmár contexts include pieces with an oblong body which lack a clearly separated head. Cp. Nagy 1998, 42, Fig. 2. 1; Nagy 1999, 126, Pl. 36. 2; Raczky–Anders 2009, Fig. 3. 14. 128

Balaguri 1975, Fig. 1. 5. Potushniak 2004, Fig. 9b. 44, 100. 134 Potushniak 2004, Fig. 9b. 43, 45, 146–149. 135 Bader 1968. 136 Lakó 1977, Fig. 2. 1–4, Fig. 3. 1–2, Fig. 5. 3–4. 137 Lakó 1978, Fig. 7. 3. 138 BăcueĠ-Criúan–Cărstea 2004, Pl. 2. 1–2, 4. 139 BăcueĠ-Criúan–Cărstea 2004, Pl. 2. 3.

129

132 133

31

The ¿nds from Méhtelek

Körös/Criú sites at Suplacu de Barcău/Berettyószéplak140 and Szentpéterszeg–Körtélyes.141 The simultaneous use of ¿gurine types common in the southern Alföld and in the distribution of the Méhtelek group seems to have been the norm in this region. It is clear from the above that the curious oblong slab ¿gurines typical for the Méhtelek group were used simultaneously with the steatopygous ¿gurines characterising the South-East European Early Neolithic. However, the latter differ slightly from the ones popular in the southern Alföld regarding the modelling of the head and the upper body (spread arms, thrown-back head and Àat face, upward gaze). Together with certain ceramic traits, these features are speci¿c to the Méhtelek group, and especially to the ¿nds from the eponymous site. There are still many unresolved questions concerning ¿gurines. Despite certain local variations, steatopygous ¿gurines are part of the general South-East European anthropomorphic imagery and they most likely had a similar meaning as elsewhere. It is unclear why the highly schematised oblong ¿gurines were manufactured alongside them. It seems likely that the oblong slab ¿gurines were vested with a meaning different from that of the steatopygous ones. Some prehistorians believe that the oblong slab ¿gurines portrayed the head only, rather than the entire human body. The interpretation of certain incisions as marking a beard on some pieces remains controversial, although it seems certain that the intent to portray men made its ¿rst appearance in the form of these oblong slab ¿gurines. It is therefore possible that in contrast to the steatopygous ¿gurines portraying women, all the oblong pieces were intended to depict men. However, another possibility must also be considered: the simple oblong ¿gurines perhaps had a dual meaning, combining the separate imagery of both the head and the body. A dual, subtle expression of both the male and the female character can be discerned on several intact ¿gurines from the Alföld.142 Is it mere chance that one of the oblong slab ¿gurines from Méhtelek has two head portrayals at either end (Fig. 4. 4)? This portrayal can perhaps be interpreted as a depiction of the sacred marriage, a recurrent theme during the entire Neolithic. A similarly arcane dual portrayal can perhaps be assumed in the case of the rod-headed ¿gurines, combining the female imagery with the male phallus.143 I agree with other prehistorians that most of the oblong slab ¿gurines and the related pieces portrayed the entire body, while not rejecting the possibility that some pieces merely depicted a (male?) head or even had a dual meaning. We may probably assume that both ¿gurine types were used in rituals and/or had a ritual purpose. The number of ¿gurines from the Méhtelek settlement is remarkably high, exceeding by far the usual number from other sites. The Méhtelek settlement appears to have been a central place-like site which probably stood out from among the other sites of the Méhtelek group owing to its role in acquiring, processing and distributing obsidian (and perhaps also salt), as well as to its prominent role in ritual activities.

Anthropomorphic and anthropographic vessels 1. Fragment of an anthropomorphic vessel with high-drawn shoulders. The surviving fragments include the right shoulder and the breast, as well as the ¿ngers resting by the breast and a fragment of the back. The latter reveals that the vessel’s horizontal section is oval, i.e. that its modelling imitates the human body. The oblique arm resting by the breast could be reconstructed. The breast is indicated by a small knob. The fragment of a short right leg with oval foot-sole probably comes from the vessel. The rim is missing. The suggested reconstruction of the vessel shows two stocky legs. The vessel’s estimated height is 28–30 cm up to the middle of the neck. Dark brownish-grey, made from clay tempered with sand and some vegetal matter. Carefully smoothed. Surviving H. 12 cm, diam. of neck 6 cm, L. of foot 10 cm. Inv. no. 94.176.109–110. From Pit 4–5/Į (Fig. 13. 1a-c). 2. Semi-oval, hollow fragment, probably from an anthropomorphic vessel. The edge of the fragment curves outward, suggesting that it comes from a larger artefact. The fragment was either the breast of a larger anthropomorphic vessel or the buttock part of a smaller one. Greyish-black with rough surface. Diam. 6 cm, diam. at the fracture 6.3 cm. Uninventoried. From Pit III (Fig. 13. 2). 3. Oval foot fragment with the indication of the toes from a smaller anthropomorphic vessel. The fragment is smaller than the foot of the vessel described under No. 1. Light brown. Diam. 5 cm. Inv. no. 94.176.111. From Pit 4–5/Į (Fig. 13. 3). 4. Outturned rim and shoulder fragment of a smaller pot with a barely prominent relief probably depicting a human ¿gure with raised arms. The right arm broke off, the head, the neck and the raised left arm survive. Greyish-brown exterior, made from clay tempered with sand and pebbles. Blackish-grey core, made from clay tempered with grit and vegetal matter. Rough surface. H. 6.5 cm. Uninventoried. From Pit 4–5/Į (Fig. 14. 1a-b). 5. Rim and body fragment of a globular pot with outturned rim, bearing traces of what were perhaps human ¿gures in relief. The place of the upper part of a separately modelled human ¿gure, which broke off, can be made out on the shoulder. Another fragment from the same vessel bears traces of the head and probably raised arms of another human ¿gure, while another the head and the end of a raised arm. Greyish-brown, made from clay tempered with pebbles and vegetal matter. Two fragments. H. 8 cm and 5.5 cm. Uninventoried. From Pit 4–5/Į (Fig. 14. 2–3). 6. Relief of a human hand from the belly of a large vessel, perhaps an anthropomorphic pot. Greyish-brown, made from clay tempered with sand and some vegetal matter. Smoothed surface. Diam. 7.5 cm. Inv. no. 94.176.101. From Pit 4–5/Į (Fig. 14. 4).

IgnaĠ 1978, Pl. 8. 1–3; IgnaĠ et al. 2000, Figs 2, 4, 10. Kalicz 2011. 142 Domboróczki 2005a, Pl. 2. 2. 143 Kutzián 1944, 1947, Pl. 43. 9, 11; Domboróczki 2005a, Pl. 2. 2. 140 141

32

The ¿nds from Méhtelek

on anthropomorphic vessels, whether modelled in a similar form or in a different shape.152 The human depictions from the Méhtelek site include a very simple, almost symbolic image: a hand on the belly fragment of a larger vessel, the single indication of the pot’s anthropomorphic nature (Fig. 14. 4). Its closest parallel can be quoted from Lepenski Vir: a large, monochrome, globular vessel from the earliest Starþevo culture on which the human nature was indicated by human hands on the vessel belly.153 Similar vessels have been found in Pernik in Bulgaria,154 while a painted variant has been reported from Azmaska Mogila.155 The fragment of a large storage jar with a hand depiction on the body was brought to light from the Early Neolithic deposit at Anza in Macedonia156 and a similar fragment is known from Achilleon in Greece, also from an Early Neolithic context.157 James Mellaart published a vessel from Hacilar in Anatolia on which a hand depiction was the single human element.158 It is quite certain that this imagery was far more widespread than the few ¿nds mentioned above would suggest, at least judging from the extensive distribution, and it also seems likely that these vessels had a similar meaning in the Early Neolithic of the Aegean and South-East Europe. Three vessel fragments from Méhtelek probably bore human ¿gures in relief. Two of these come from the neck of a larger vessel on which traces of the relief survived under the neck: a stylised human ¿gure with raised arms had been applied to the vessel body (Fig. 14. 2–3). The third piece comes from a similar vessel and bears the barely prominent relief of a human ¿gure with raised arms (Fig. 14. 1a-b). Human ¿gures applied onto larger vessels, especially storage jars, occur from Anatolia to the Carpathian Basin and beyond. It seems likely that their spread can be linked to the diffusion of farming in the Ancient Near East and Anatolia, whence they reached the Balkans and the Carpathian Basin.159 We may assume that these ¿gures had a similar meaning. There is a general consensus that the human depictions of the Early Neolithic and of later periods were not toys or pieces made by apprentice potters, but the paraphernalia of ritual activities and the embodiments of a wide range of symbols which accompanied daily life from birth to death. Research during the past decades has conclusively proven that male portrayals also appear among the many diverse human depictions, most of which represented women believed to be expressions of a fertility cult. The astonishing diversity of these representations is in itself an indication that the imagery accompanying the spread of farming across the immense territory extending from the Ancient Near East to the Carpathian Basin did not serve a single purpose and

The Körös communities made and used considerably more human ¿gurines than anthropomorphic vessels. The label “anthropomorphic” is rather broad because the currently known three intact anthropomorphic vessels of the Körös culture from Gorzsa, Öcsöd and Rákóczifalva (standing 11– 14 cm high) are characterised by the dominance of the vessel form over the realistic rendering of the human body.144 The globular form is a trait shared by all three of these small vessels, on which two short incised lines and the moulded nose mark the face on the neck, while two perforated knobs symbolise the arms. The accentuated buttocks on the vessels from Gorzsa and Öcsöd, protruding from the vessel’s globular form, symbolise the female nature. In contrast, the buttocks were indicated by a simple vertical incision, without a pronounced modelling on the vessel from Rákóczifalva. The legs were similarly separated by an incision, while on the Gorzsa and Öcsöd vessels the legs were separately modelled. This vessel type was current across the entire Alföld distribution of the Körös culture as shown by the vessel fragments from Szajol, Rákócziújfalu145 and the EndrĘd 119 site.146 The small anthropomorphic vessel lacking the head from the Mostonga site of the Early Neolithic Donja Branjevina type can also be assigned to this category.147 While small anthropomorphic vessels of this type have not been found at the Méhtelek settlement, the fragments of larger vessels modelled on the human body did come to light: the chest and the foot survived in one case (Fig. 13. 1a-b) and perhaps part of the buttocks in another (Fig. 13. 2). The reconstructed height of the two vessels was estimated at 28–30 cm (Fig. 13. 1a-c, 2). One interesting trait of the ¿rst vessel is that its horizontal section is oval, conforming to the human body. The other characteristic feature is that the arms were modelled separately from the body: the bent arm rests on the body by the breasts and the hands are rendered most realistically. It is likewise unclear whether the large fragment with a face depiction from Nagykörü was part of an anthropomorphic vessel or a face pot.148 The geographically closest analogy to the anthropomorphic vessel with the hands under the breast in the Carpathian Basin comes from Donja Branjevinja;149 Sergej Karmanski believes that a larger foot fragment had also been part of a similar vessel.150 Standing ¿gurines with the hands placed under the breasts were quite common in the Early Neolithic of the Ancient Near East, Anatolia and the Balkans.151 but much more rare

Kalicz 1970, Figs 2–4. Raczky 1979–80, Fig. 10. 3, 7. 146 Makkay 1992, Pl. 30. 2; Makkay 2007, Fig. 95. 3. 147 Karmanski 1968, Pl. 21. 1a-d; Karmanski 1975, Fig. 46. 1; Karmanski 1979, Pl. 47. 1; Karmanski 2005, Pl. 2. 1a-c. 148 Raczky 1979–80, Pl. 10. 1. 149 Karmanski 1975, Fig. 45. 1; Karmanski 2005, Pl. 30. 3. The same fragment is here shown upside down. 150 Karmanski 1977, Fig. 1a-b. 151 It seems unnecessary to list all the similar pieces because Svend Hansen has provided an excellent overview (Hansen 2007), as has Marija Gimbutas (Gimbutas 1974, 138–144, Figs 83–85; Gimbutas 1982, Figs 98–99, 138–144; Gimbutas 1989, esp. Fig. 7.24. 2, 7. Figs 26–28 and Figs 30–32; Gimbutas 1991, Fig. 149). Cp. also Mellaart 1970 and the catalogue to the Bulgarian exhibition in Wolfenbüttel featuring both ¿gurines and anthropomorphic vessels with the hands placed under the breasts (Busch 1981, Cat. nos 38–39, 67, 90). 144

Cp. Hansen 2007 and the catalogue to the Anatolia exhibition in Karlsruhe (Lichter 2007, 202–203), as well Gimbutas’ works cited in note 151. For other parallels, cp. Mellaart 1970, Pl. 114. 35, Pl. 172. Pl. 176, Pl. 249 (Hacilar); Theocharis 1973, 312, Nos 219–220 (Nea Nikomedeia); Gimbutas 1989, 201, Pl. 7.53, Figs 1–4, Pl. 7.13. 1–2 (Achilleon); Todorova–Vajsov 1993; Raduncheva 1976, 6, 9; Busch 1981. 153 Srejoviü 1981, Colour plate on p. 46, No. 257. 154 ýochadžiev 1983, Fig. 21. 1–3. 155 Georgiev 1967, Fig. 9. Mihail ýochadžiev mentions that one difference between modelled hands and painted hands on vessels was that in several cases the hands were depicted with four ¿ngers only, as for example on the vessels from Pernik (ýochadžiev 1983, 47). 156 Gimbutas 1972, 113, lower right; Gimbutas 1976, Pl. 26. 157 Theocharis 1967, Fig. 87, bottom. 158 Mellaart 1970, Pl. 56. 4. 159 Being well-known depictions, it seems unnecessary to list their parallels.

145

152

33

The ¿nds from Méhtelek

the occupants of the Méhtelek settlement did not attach any particular importance to the depiction of animals. The utilitarian artefacts from the site include spindle whorls and loom weights (Fig. 15. 14–16),165 whose form changed little from the Neolithic onward, remaining more or less the same throughout prehistory. These artefacts are the simple relics of spinning and weaving. The fragment of a handled clay spoon (Fig. 16. 2)166 was probably a household utensil whose counterpart is known from the Alföld.167 The round clay beads coming in various sizes had no doubt been strung into necklaces or bracelets (Fig. 15. 3–5).168 Fragments of slender and thicker clay rings (Fig. 15. 6–7)169 were perhaps bracelets copying adornments of Spondylus and marble, both valuable commodities somehow known to the Méhtelek community. Similar clay rings are known from the Early and Middle Neolithic of the Carpathian Basin and the Balkans. Suf¿ce it here to quote the bracelets fashioned from both Spondylus and clay used at Anza Begovo, a site dating from the same period.170 It would appear that Spondylus from the Aegean and the Adriatic was not an easily acquirable commodity during the Early Neolithic of the Carpathian Basin.

that similar meanings were expressed using a similar visual vocabulary. Obviously, regional variants can be distinguished within the broader unit characterised by a set of similar traits. At Méhtelek, for example, ¿ve different forms of human depictions can be distinguished: oblong slab ¿gurines, steatopygous ¿gurines, vessel modelled in the shape of the human body, anthropomorphic vessels, whose human nature is indicated by hands, and human reliefs. While the two diverging ¿gurine types occur in unusually high number at Méhtelek, it is also striking that they occur alongside each other on other sites too. This can hardly be mere chance and I would assume that the two different portrayals were meant to express two different meanings, and the same probably holds true for the other human depictions too, whether modelled in the round or as applied reliefs. I would highlight a single aspect of the human representations of the Early Neolithic, namely the many different arm and hand positions. In some cases, the arms were indicated with small stumps, while in others the entire arm was modelled either separately from the body or applied to it in different postures, with the hands resting under the breasts or in the lap. The different types of arm and hand postures are even more apparent on the reliefs adorning the body of large storage jars (both arms raised upward, one arm raised upward and the other held downward, both arms held downward, etc.). It would appear that various arm positions carried a symbolic signi¿cance and that their meaning was common knowledge across a broad geographical expanse. An adorant pose can be assumed in several cases, especially for the reliefs, while others would suggest arm positions used during dancing.160 There can be no doubt that dance was an important element of the human experience since time immemorial and that it was an integral part of social gatherings and rituals during the Neolithic and in later periods too. The rich diversity of human depictions at the Méhtelek site, the surprisingly high number and uniqueness of certain portrayal types certainly suggests that this small settlement was not merely an economic centre engaged in the acquisition and redistribution of raw materials, but also acted as a ritual centre.

Bone and antler artefacts The acidic soil at Méhtelek did not favour the preservation of bone and antler. Most were destroyed during the millennia after burial, and only a few survived in the lower half of the pits containing a higher amount of organic matter. Bone spoon The single bone spoon from Méhtelek was recovered from Pit 1–3/Į (Fig. 16. 16, Fig. 53).171 The handle fragment of a spoon was found in Pit 4–5/Į.172 The term bone spoon denotes a distinctive artefact of the Körös culture made from cattle (or aurochs) metapodial, a sturdy bone no doubt selected for its durability. Bone spoons were widely used artefacts of the Early Neolithic, whose occurrence has been documented from the eastern half of the Carpathian Basin and the eastern Balkans to Macedonia, and from the European territory of Turkey to Hacilar (Level VI) and Çatal Hüyük,173 and even farther, for example at Jarmo.174 The bone spoons of the Early Neolithic usually have an elongated bowl ending in a V shape. A piece made using the same technique was recovered from the Early Neolithic site of Anza in Macedonia (from Layer I or II).175 While some spoons from the Balkans have a slight dip in the bowl, even these pieces would only have been suitable for scooping up no more than a minuscule amount of a powder or paste-like light substance.176 The many comprehensive studies on this artefact type makes a detailed discussion of

Miscellaneous small artefacts Described here will be various smaller artefacts used in daily life. A clay ring (Fig. 15. 2)161 and the fragment of a similar ring which broke before its completion (Fig. 15. 1)162 can hardly be regarded as household articles, but rather as adornments. The most remarkable pieces among these are the appliqué ornaments which had once adorned larger vessels. These include strongly schematised animal heads which had once functioned as vessel lugs (Fig. 15. 8–10),163 a relief portraying an animal head with horns (Fig. 15. 13) and a relief fragment depicting the horns of a larger creature from a more massive storage jar (Fig. 15. 17).164 The scarcity of animal representations compared to the rich diversity of human depictions came as a surprise. It would appear that

From Pit 4–5/Į. Inv. no. 94.176.116–118. From Pit1–3/Į. Inv. no. 94.176.122. 167 Kutzián 1944, 1947, Pl. 1. 7. 168 From Pit 4–5/Į and Pit III. Inv. no. 94.176.128–131. 169 From Pit 1–3/Į and Pit 4–5/Į. Inv. no. 94.176.123–124. 170 Gimbutas 1976, Fig. 215. 1–7, Fig. 216. 1–9. 171 Kalicz–Makkay 1976, 17–18, Taf. 6. 1. 172 Inv. No. 94.176.140. 173 Mellaart 1967, Figs 101–102; Mellaart 1970, Pl. 120. e-h, Figs 180–182; Mellaart 1975, Fig. 35, lower row, right. 174 Özdogan 1989, Fig. 1. 8–10. 175 Smoor 1976, Pl. 11. a-b. 176 Kunchev 1983, Fig. 4. 165 166

Raczky 1978, 9–12, Fig. 2. 1. From Pit 1–3/Į. Inv. no. 94.176.127. 162 From Pit III. Inv. no. 94.176.126. 163 From Pit III. Inv. no. 94.176.105–107. 164 From Pit 4–5/Į. Inv. no. 94.176.100. 160 161

34

The ¿nds from Méhtelek

and broken pieces, as well as semi-¿nished products. Some antlers had evidently been selected for later working.182 The antlers intended to be used as tools were bored through at the junction of the tine and the beam for use as hafts (Fig. 17. 1–4, Fig. 18. 2, 4, Fig. 53). It is uncertain why larger antlers were thrown (or perhaps hidden as a part of a ritual activity) in Pit III, which was not one of the larger features. The possible intended function of two smaller fragments bearing traces of sawing and of two antler tips from Pit 4–5/Į, the largest excavated feature, is enigmatic (Fig. 17. 5, Fig. 18. 5–6). Large perforated antler tools and implements were used in all Early Neolithic cultures, including the Körös culture, although their number is surprisingly low. This is all the more unusual because at Méhtelek, where the bone and antler artefacts were only preserved in small number owing to the acidic soil, considerably more large antler tools and semi-¿nished products survived than from more extensively investigated Körös sites.183 For example, no more than four larger antler implements have been published from the large Donja Branjevina settlement184 and the number of large artefacts is similarly low from the Transylvanian Early Neolithic. A few small fragments were reported by Nicolae Vlassa from Gura Baciului/Bácsitorok185 and a handful of larger fragments by Iuliu Paul from Ocna Sibiului/Vízakna.186 Their reconstruction was presented by Marius Mihai Ciută.187 The major sites in the Balkans (Obre I, Divostin, Grivac and Achilleon) yielded even fewer large antler artefacts. In contrast, a remarkably rich corpus of large antler ¿nds is known from the Early Neolithic Bug–Dniester culture.188 During the Epipalaeolithic and the late Mesolithic, antler tools and implements were widely used by the communities settling in the Danube Gorges, some of which were later occupied during the Early Neolithic too. Suf¿ce it here to mention the sites on both the Romanian and Serbian side of the Danube, where antler tools and implements occurred in high number: Lepenski Vir, 189 Vlasac190 and Mihajlovac–Kula191 on the Serbian side and Schela Cladovei and a series of similar sites192 on the opposite, Romanian side. Vasile BoroneanĠ hypothesized an “evolution” from the Epipalaeolithic to the Early Neolithic involving the selective hunting of certain species and, eventually, the selective gathering of certain plants. Both activities called for the use of weapons and implements manufactured from antler, which thus survived into the Early Neolithic Protosesklo–Protostarþevo period.193 Romanian and Serbian prehistorians generally agree that the transitional period is best exempli¿ed by the sites in the Danube Gorges and their broader area.

bone spoons in the Early Neolithic cultures of South-East Europe and Anatolia contemporaneous with the Körös culture unnecessary.177 On some pieces, one side of the bowl was heavily worn, while on others, its tip was worn into a ¿ne point owing to extensive use. It would appear that the bone spoons of the Szatmár group were a legacy of the Körös culture: bone spoons occur among the culture’s assemblages from the Alföld, as well as among the ¿nds of the Méhtelek group distributed in the Upper Tisza and the Szamos region.178 This artefact type was described as a typical artefact of the Körös culture in the preliminary report on the Méhtelek site. The widespread use of bone spoons, which began to be manufactured in great number at the same time as sickle hafts, can be observed across Anatolia, the Aegean and the Balkans during the Early Neolithic. It was mediated to the Carpathian Basin in a virtually identical form through the Körös– Starþevo–Criú culture. Their use in the Carpathian Basin is obviously linked to the appearance of farming economies. A high number of bone spoons came to light on sites of the Szatmár group representing the formative ALP in the Alföld after the decline of the Körös complex.179 The spoons of the Szatmár group were not produced from sturdy metatarsals, but from more abundantly available and more easily carvable large animal ribs. However, ribs were more fragile and these spoons broke more often. Several pieces are known from the Tordos/Turdaú culture of Transylvania.180 Moving farther to the south, their use can be noted from the early Vinüa culture onward.181 Bone spoons are one of the perhaps best known artefacts of the Early Neolithic from the Ancient Near East to the Carpathian Basin. Their distribution is virtually identical with that of sickle hafts. Their appearance and use can be evidently linked to the emergence and spread of food-producing economies. Seeing that they were common across extensive regions, it seems unnecessary to list all the known parallels of this artefact type. Antler artefacts The surviving antler artefacts were predominantly axes, hoes and hammers. The ¿nds from Méhtelek include both intact The ¿rst bone spoons of the Körös culture were published by Gyula Kisléghi Nagy from ÓbesenyĘ (Kisléghi-Nagy 1911, Pl. 1. 2–8). The same ¿nds were published by Felix Milleker (1938, Pl. 34. 2–8) and, later still, by Gheorghe Lazarovici (1979, Pl. IV/E. 28–36). The bone spoons of the Starþevo culture were discussed by Draga Aranÿeloviü-Garašanin (1954) in the monograph on the culture. The bone spoons were placed in a broader cultural context by John Nandris (1972) in his overview of these artefacts, distributed from the Ancient Near East to the Tisza region. The pieces from the Carpathian Basin, most of which were heavily worn, were described by Kutzián (1944, 1947, 86–87, Pl. 9. 1–9, Pl. 48. 1, 11–20). Aleksander Baþkalov reviewed the Early and Middle Neolithic specimens from Serbia. Interestingly enough, most of the bone spoons from the Starþevo site were heavily worn (Baþkalov 1979, 23–26, 48, Pl. 24. 8–13, Pl. 25. 1–10). Makkay devoted a separate study to the thirty-¿ve bone spoons brought to light during the excavations conducted as part of the archaeological site survey in County Békés (Makkay 1990, Figs. 1–4; Makkay 1999, 54). Mention must also be made of the pieces published by Banner (1932; 1940). A worn bone spoon is known from Vlassa’s excavations at Gura Baciului, whose ¿nds were published by Gheorghe Lazarovici and Zoia Maxim (1995, Fig. 25. 14). 178 Kalicz–Makkay 1976, 17–18, Taf. 6. 1. 179 Kalicz–Koós 1997, Abb. 18, Cat. no. II. 58–62; Kalicz–Koós 2000, Abb. 11. 4–15; Kalicz–Koós 2001, Abb. 16. 4–15; Domboróczki 1997, Cat. nos I. 5–10; Makkay 2007, Fig. 140. 180 Roska 1941, Pls 65–67. 181 Vasiü 1932, Fig. 16. 67–88. 177

Inv. no. 94.176.135–139. Banner 1940, Pl. 4. 17; Banner 1942, Pl. 3. 17; Makkay 1990, Abb. 19. 1–9. These are the larger antler artefacts brought to light from excavations of Körös sites. 184 Karmanski 2005, Pls 147–150. 185 Vlassa 1972, Abb. 3. 12, Abb. 4. 11–14. 186 Paul 1995, Taf. 4. 4, Taf. 13. 1–2. 187 Ciută 2005, Pl. 13. 1–2. 188 Danilenko 1969, Fig. 124. 1, Fig. 126. 1–2, Fig. 129. 22–38, Fig. 130. 1–19. 189 Srejoviü 1969, Fig. 52; Srejoviü 1981, Figs 38–39; Srejoviü–Baboviü 1981, Cat. nos 139, 144; Baþkalov 1979, Pls 6–7. 190 Srejoviü–Letica 1978, Pls 49–56, 83–92; Baþkalov 1979, Pls 10–15. 191 Sladiü 1986, Fig. 7. 28–43. 192 Păunescu 1978, Fig. 10. 1–2; Mogoúanu 1978, Fig. 3; BoroneanĠ 1970; BoroneanĠ 1973a; BoroneanĠ 1973b: BoroneanĠ 1989, Pls 5–6; 193 BoroneanĠ 1989, Fig. 2; BoroneanĠ 1973, Pls 5–12. 182 183

35

The ¿nds from Méhtelek

One intriguing issue is why, in contrast to bone spoons, antler sickle hafts were so scarce in the Early Neolithic of SouthEast Europe (with the exception of Bulgaria). It seems to me that this scarcity is illusory because the farming communities of the Early Neolithic and later periods probably used sickle hafts made from organic material such as wood, which have perished. Their existence is suggested by the countless stone blades from the Early Neolithic onward which bear sickle gloss on the section protruding from the haft, reÀecting their function as sickle inserts.210 The currently known antler sickle hafts indicate that the origins of this implement can be sought in the Near East, the Levant and Anatolia, whence they spread to Central Asia and the Balkans (and to Bulgaria in particular). The sickle haft found at Méhtelek can be seen as another reÀection of the contacts with Bulgaria. Their scarceness in the Carpathian Basin can in part be explained by the lack of similar artefacts in the territory between the Carpathian Basin and Bulgaria.

If the impressive number of large antler artefacts used by the Mesolithic communities living in the Danube Gorges was not merely a local tradition, but a widespread practice across the greater part of the Carpathian Basin, we may assume that the similar tools were a legacy of the Mesolithic (or Epipalaeolithic) in the Neolithic, when they were used for loosening the soil.194 Antler sickle haft One of the most extraordinary artefacts from Méhtelek was a sickle haft with two deep slots for the inserts made from an antler tip (Fig. 16. 15, Fig. 53), the single ¿nd of this type from the Early Neolithic of Carpathian Basin. Sickle hafts are typical Early Neolithic implements in Central Asia195 and the Ancient Near East:196 suf¿ce it here to quote the ¿nds from Mugharet (Natu¿an),197 Jarmo198 and Hassuna in Mesopotamia.199 Sickle hafts created from antler were also used in Anatolia, at Çayönü200 and at Çatal Hüyük,201 and several pieces were found at Hacilar too.202 Several sickle hafts are known from Bulgaria, con¿rming Georgiev’s view on the Near Eastern origins of sickles. No sickle ¿nds were known from Anatolia in the early 1960s, which too seemed to corroborate this assumption. Georgiev noted that in Bulgaria, sickle hafts manufactured from antler were most widespread in Thrace and that the most impressive pieces came to light in the lower occupation levels of the Karanovo settlement.203 Sickle hafts were found at the tell settlement of Jasa Tepe,204 Karanovo205 and Tell Azmak.206 More recently, Henrieta Todorova and Ivan Vajsov published ¿ve such artefacts from Kazanlak.207 The single antler sickle haft known to me from the vast territory between Méhtelek and Bulgaria is a piece from north-eastern Oltenia in Romania.208 Surprisingly enough, sickle hafts have not been reported from Greece and the former Yugoslavia. The sickle haft from Méhtelek again underscores the contacts between the Alföld and Bulgaria during the Early Neolithic. It is noteworthy that a sickle haft made from antler came to light at the Füzesabony–Gubakút settlement of the Szatmár group (representing the earliest ALP phase) which succeeded the Körös culture and was in part distributed in the former Körös territory.209 This artefact can be taken as yet another indication that the Méhtelek group of the Körös culture was one of the Szatmár group’s antecedents.

Other ¿nds The fragments of two bone chisels and the fragment of a boar tusk plaque came to light in Pit 4–5/Į, the largest pit complex of the Méhtelek site (Fig. 18. 1, 3). Lithics The one-time status of the Méhtelek site is reÀected also by the richness of the lithic ¿nds, dominated by obsidian (Fig. 54). I shall not describe the lithic ¿nds in detail here because several comprehensive studies have been already published on the stone artefacts from the site. The chipped stone implements from Méhtelek, numbering 1820 pieces in all, were ¿rst discussed by John Chapman, with a focus on raw materials, manufacturing techniques and technical data such as size. He noted that the lithic industry at the Méhtelek site did not reÀect the one-time existence of a specialised workshop and neither did he discern any links with the Early Neolithic stone industries of the eastern Balkans. Similarly to other prehistorians, Chapman noted that the obsidian from Méhtelek represented the Carpathian 1 and 2 varieties, and that the other lithic raw materials had been obtained from the alluvial deposits of the Szamos.211 The most detailed study on the chipped, polished and ground lithic artefacts of the Méhtelek site was written by Elisabetta Starnini. However, only 1710 chipped and 88 polished stone ¿nds were available for study to her. She too noted the dominance of obsidian, represented by the two Carpathian variants (I–II).212 Her statistical analysis revealed that obsidian, a volcanic rock with deposits in the Tokaj–Zemplén–Eperjes Mountains, accounted for 50 to 80 per cent in the lithic assemblages recovered from the different settlement features. The high quantities of obsidian found at the Méhtelek site exceeded by far the needs of the community. Other lithics used aside from obsidian were limnoquartzite and andesite, whose sources too lie in the Tokaj–Zemplén–

It seems unlikely that these artefacts had been overlooked and categorised among the simple animal bones representing food remains on other excavations. 195 Jeitun: Masson–Sarianidi 1972, 42, Fig. 7, second and third row, right; Masson 1978, 35–37, Fig. 11. 196 To quote but a few examples from Shanidar: Mellaart 1965a, Fig. III. 3; Mellaart 1975, Fig. 30, right (after Solecki). 197 Mellaart 1965a, Fig. III. 6, 9. 198 Mellaart 1975, Fig. 35, top (after Braidwood). 199 Lloyd et al. 1944, Fig. 37. 200 Edgü 1983, Cat. no. 26. 201 Mellaart 1965b, 210, Pl. 83. 3b; Mellaart 1967, 211. 202 Mellaart 1970, Pl. CXX. a-d = Pls 177–179. 203 Georgiev 1961, 61 and Pl. 4. 9–10; Höglinger 1997, 192–193, Taf. 81, 1–6, 19. 204 Detev 1959, Fig. 66. 205 Georgiev 1961, 61. 206 Georgiev 1967, 25, 27, and Fig. 6, right. 207 Todorova–Vajsov 1993, Pl. 69, lower left. 208 Comúa 1981, 115 and Fig. 1. Eugen Comúa quoted the sickle haft after Dumitru Berciu’s book which was unavailable to me. 209 Domboróczki 1997, Fig. 11, Cat. no. I. 24; Domboróczki 1999, Fig. 4. 194

For stone blades with sickle gloss from Méhtelek, cp. Starnini 1994, Fig. 17. 2 and Starnini 2000, Fig. 3. 1–6. Stone blades with sickle gloss have been also published from Donja Branjevina (Karmanski 2005, 64, Pl. 171. 19, 23) and Karanovo III (Gurova–Gatsov 2000, Figs 1–3). 211 Chapman 1987. 212 Starnini 1993; Starnini 1994; Starnini 2000.

210

36

The ¿nds from Méhtelek

Breakdown of lithic ¿nds according to settlement features

Eperjes Mountains, although deposits have also been identi¿ed in the Mátra and Bükk Mountains. The many varieties of Àints could not be precisely provenanced. The presence of Szentgál radiolarite from Transdanubia and of northern Balkanic (or yellow Banat) Àint reÀects the contacts of the site’s occupants, and would con¿rm an observation made by Maágorzata Kaczanowska and Janusz K. Kozáowski that the chipped stone implements from Méhtelek share numerous traits with the chipped stone industry of Cuina Turcului I–III and Ostrovul Golu in the Danube Gorges.213 The extraordinary richness of the lithic ¿nds from Méhtelek is especially striking in comparison with the scarcity of stone ¿nds and the raw material composition of the known assemblages from the Körös sites in the Alföld and in Transylvania. The occupants of Méhtelek took pains in acquiring a wide range of lithic raw materials and they were apparently engaged in the processing and redistribution of lithics. They established and maintained contact both with the northern hunter-forager groups, who probably controlled the obsidian sources, and with the Early Neolithic communities in the south, becoming both participants and, to some extent, forgers of a long-distance trade in this commodity. These far-Àung contacts would explain how a few pieces of Banat Àint and of Transdanubian radiolarite reached the site. The cultural traits particular to the Méhtelek group, reÀected by pottery and cult devices, evolved simultaneously: with the exception of the oblong slab ¿gurines, the basic forms of the group’s artefacts can be derived from the Körös culture of the southern Alföld. Studies by Béla Rácz have led to the identi¿cation of a third Carpathian obsidian variant (Carpathian III). However, it would appear that this newly-identi¿ed source did not play as prominent a role as the ¿rst two variants.214

Pit 1–3/Į An impressive number of chipped stone implements and cores (415 pieces were examined, of which 291 pieces, accounting for 70.1 per cent, were made from obsidian), as well as polished stone tools, quern stones and a few Àat slabs (18) were recovered from this pit (cp. Fig. 54).215 Pit 4–5/Į A high number of chipped stone implements (405 pieces were examined, of which 268, accounting for 66.3 per cent, were made from obsidian), as well as polished stone tools, quern stones and handstones (33) came to light.216 Pit 6/Į 50 chipped stone implements were examined, of which 54 per cent was made from obsidian. Two polished stone tools were also found.217 Pit 7/Į Many stone blades and Àakes lay in upper part of the pit (130 pieces were examined, of which 73 were made from obsidian, accounting for 56.2 per cent). Other ¿nds included eight polished stone tools and two quern stones and handstones.218 Pit II 25 chipped stone implements were examined, of which 20 were made from obsidian, accounting for 80 per cent.219 Pit III The lithic assemblage included a high number of chipped stone implements, Àakes and cores (651 pieces were examined, of which 50.8 per cent were made of obsidian). The other ¿nds included 22 polished stone tools, 68 quern stones and hand stones, as well as other lithic implements.220

434 lithic ¿nds were inventoried from the pit. 725 lithic ¿nds were inventoried from the pit. 217 100 lithic ¿nds were inventoried from the pit. 218 144 lithic ¿nds were inventoried from the pit. 219 25 lithic ¿nds were inventoried from the pit. 220 Starninni 1994, Pls 39–48. 215 216

213 214

Kaczanowska–Kozáowski 1987, quoted by Starnini 1994, 81. Rácz 2009; Mester–Rácz 2010.

37

Kalicz_Book.indb 38

2011.12.13. 11:40:01

The settlements and the distribution of the Méhtelek group

to the Szatmár I phase all represented the Méhtelek group of the Körös culture, making the use of the Szatmár I label superÀuous. The Szatmár (II) phase was retained, but without Szatmár I, leading to a host of misunderstandings. Pál Raczky later noted that the ¿nds earlier assigned to Szatmár II actually represented the earliest ALP phase.225 Three labels (Szatmár II, Szatmár and earliest ALP) are now used to describe the same set of ¿nds, giving rise to countless misinterpretations. It must again be emphasized that the three labels denote one and the same chronological phase, which followed the Körös culture and represents the earliest, formative ALP period. The great distance between the northern boundary of the Körös distribution drawn at the Kunhegyes–Berettyóujfalu line and the Méhtelek site continued to puzzle prehistorians, as did the appearance of the curious oblong slab ¿gurines among the traditional steatopygous pieces. The thrown-back triangular head and the upward-gazing face of some of the traditional ¿gurines was another novelty because ¿gurines with thrown-back head were unknown in the Alföld. The similar ¿gurines from Transylvania and the Ukraine suggested that the Transylvanian branch of the Körös culture played a key role in the emergence of the Méhtelek group and that the River Szamos and its tributaries were major avenues of contact. In the 1970s and 1980s, Doina IgnaĠ published a series of Early Neolithic sites identi¿ed in the Körös and Berettyó drainage: the plainland extending westward of the mountains was occupied by Körös communities, while the area to its east probably by Criú groups.226 The ¿nd assemblages from the Bihar region are dominated by the Alföld Körös culture. The sites in the historical Partium region, especially the settlements along the River Ér, could be linked to the Körös culture of the Alföld and were in fact part of its distribution. The groups migrating northward skirted the Nyírség sand region and advanced northward along the one-time River Ér. The human ¿gurines from the Bihar region are dominated by pieces with the body and the head modelled in the traditional style, although a few exceptions can be quoted. Gheorghe Lazarovici mentions the oblong slab ¿gurines from Zăuan/ Szilágyzovány and the rectangular prism shaped pieces from Suplacu de Barcău/Berettyószéplak.227 The Ér Valley can be conceptualised as a second communications route between south and north, along which the pottery wares and ¿gurines of the Alföld Körös culture reached the Upper Tisza region, whether directly or indirectly. It has recently been suggested that the left bank of the Tisza was also a major south to north route. Domboróczki has repeatedly argued that the Körös culture’s Transylvanian branch played a lesser role than earlier assumed. It is possible that the lack of Körös sites in the Nyírség region can be explained by the culture’s dislike of sandy regions. Domboróczki investigated a major Körös settlement at

The Méhtelek site represents a small settlement with dispersed features. The 28 m wide area underlying the Àood embankment could not be investigated and neither could the settlement’s northern boundary be determined owing to the ¿elds under cultivation. One of the trial trenches opened in the northern part of the investigated area contained two pits, while the trench opened 5 metres to its north was devoid of any ¿nds. However, this does not necessarily imply that the settlement did not extend further northward. The position of the three pits lying south of the embankment was noteworthy: they were more or less evenly spaced with 11–13 m between them and they appear to have been aligned along an east– south-east to west–north-west oriented line. This arrangement recalls the settlement layout of the slightly later Szatmár group (representing the earliest ALP) noted at MezĘkövesd– Mocsolyás, where the houses were Àanked by parallelly aligned longpits.221 A comparable layout and orientation was noted among the contemporary buildings unearthed in the southern part of County Heves222 and in the Central European and Transdanubian Linear Pottery (TLP) distribution, where the houses were typically Àanked by longpits. While the occurrence and frequency of burnt daub fragments in the pits at Méhtelek and the two post-holes may indicate similar residential structures, the evidence is circumstantial at best. László Domboróczki and Pál Raczky reconstructed a similar settlement layout with buildings aligned in the same direction at Ibrány.223 At the time of the discovery of the Méhtelek settlement, sites of the southern Alföld Körös culture were not known north of the Kunhegyes–Berettyóujfalu line. Several sites were known in the Upper Tisza region (which incorporates the Szamos drainage too), mostly from the ¿nds collected during ¿eld surveys, which could be undeniably assigned to the Early Neolithic, although their precise cultural attribution remained uncertain. These ¿nds were lumped together under the label Szatmár group. By the late 1960s and early 197s, two chronological horizons could be distinguished among these sites. The early horizon was characterised by stronger Körös traits and the sites yielding material of this type (Nagyecsed, Tiszabezdéd) were therefore dated to the Szatmár I phase. The succeeding horizon saw the fading of the Körös tradition and the appearance of lavishly painted pottery and the dominance of linear patterns; the sites in this category (Rétközberencs, KenézlĘ, Tiszacsege, Tiszavalk, Ciumeúti/Csomaköz) were assigned to the Szatmár II phase.224 The legitimacy of the label Szatmár group was challenged by the excavations at Méhtelek, whose ¿nds indicated that even though the site could be culturally assigned to the Körös culture, its material represented the culture’s special, local variant. It also became clear that the sites earlier assigned Kalicz–Koós 2011. Domboróczki 1999, Fig. 1; Domboróczki 2001; Domboróczki 2009; Domboróczki 2010. 223 Domboróczki–Raczky 2010, 211–212. Figs 15–16. 224 Kalicz–Makkay 1977, 18–29. 221

222

Raczky 1983; Raczky 1986. IgnaĠ 1978. 227 Lazarovici 1980, 20, quoting Doina IgnaĠ’s personal communication. 225

226

39

The settlements and the distribution of the Méhtelek group

the Àoodwaters had receded. The ef¿ciency of this assumed subsistence practice is reÀected by the unusually high amounts of ¿sh bones and ¿sh scales brought to light on Körös settlements, especially on sites in the southern Alföld. The occupants of the recently excavated settlement at Ibrány appear to have followed a similar practice. The following sites of the Méhtelek group are known to me. All of these sites were one-time settlements. A detailed description of occupation patterns is only known from the Ukraine. It seems likely that several similar sites will be discovered in north-western Transylvania and in southern Carpatho-Ukraine in the future, and the identi¿cation of new settlements can be expected in Hungary too, in part in the area outlined by the currently known sites and in part beyond it. The southernmost site was discovered by László Domboróczki during systematic ¿eld surveys at Ibrány in County Szabolcs-Szatmár. Judging from the surface scatter of ¿nds, the currently known sites were between 1 and 3 hectares large, suggesting that the Méhtelek communities established fairly small settlements that were not intensively occupied. Similarly to Méhtelek, the settlement features lay quite far apart. The same pattern was noted at the two sites investigated in the Ukraine, where the large excavated pits yielded a remarkably rich assemblage of ¿nds.

TiszaszĘlĘs–Domaháza, a site lying some 30 km north of the Kunhegyes–Berettyó line, earlier de¿ned as the northern boundary of the Körös distribution by the present author and János Makkay. The site yielded ¿nds of the southern Alföld Körös culture228 and the former line marking the northern boundary of the culture’s distribution had to be redrawn. Later, during a ¿eld survey conducted in 2004, Domboróczki collected Körös pottery fragments at Ibrány, a site lying even farther to the north.229 Körös sherds had been collected earlier in the area by Katalin Melis at Ibrány–Paszab. These ¿nds provided additional con¿rmation for Domboróczki’s model on the communications route in the Upper Tisza region.230 The role of the Transylvanian Criú culture has been seriously challenged by recent research. A closer look at the known, admittedly scanty Criú assemblages from northern and north-western Transylvania reveals that there are barely any differences in the ceramic style compared to the ¿nds of the Alföld Körös culture and the Méhtelek group. In our initial publication of the Méhtelek ¿nds, we emphasized the role of the Körös culture’s Transylvanian branch in the formation of the Méhtelek group, although admittedly without offering a plausible explanation.231 This view is still echoed by Domboróczki and Raczky.232 However, genuine divergences can only be noted regarding the earliest Neolithic ¿nds from southern Transylvania, an issue that will no doubt be clari¿ed by future studies in this ¿eld. The northward advance of the Körös groups, whether along two or three routes, was doubtless motivated by the need to acquire obsidian and other lithics. The occupants of the Méhtelek site (and probably of the group’s other settlements) were engaged in the acquisition, the working and the distribution or trade of this lithic raw material. Several studies have been devoted to the early trade in salt in prehistoric Europe. Evidence for the exploitation of salt deposits during the Early and Middle Neolithic has been reported from Serbia,233 Moldavia and Transylvania,234 and Bulgaria.235 If salt extraction activity can be demonstrated in the area of the later Maramureú/Máramaros salt mines, we may perhaps assume that salt was the other principal commodity acquired and traded by the Méhtelek group. It can hardly be mere chance that the Early Neolithic sites of Moldavia can be found in the broader area of the salt harvesting locations active in the Neolithic.236

Hungary 1. Fényeslitke (County Szabolcs-Szatmár) Pál Patay uncovered a Middle Copper Age cemetery on the outskirts of the village.237 The ¿nds from the excavations included a few Méhtelek type pottery sherds (Fig. 1. 4).238 2.

Ibrány–NagyerdĘ (County Szabolcs-Szatmár) Discovered during the systematic ¿eld surveys conducted in the area, the site was excavated by László Domboróczki and Pál Raczky in 2008.239 The pottery sherds and the other ¿nds recovered from a large pit were published in a series of articles (Fig. 1. 12).240

3.

Méhtelek–Nádas (County Szabolcs-Szatmár) It was obvious from the very start during the excavations at Méhtelek that the site could be assigned to the Körös culture and that the ¿nds represented a variant of that culture. This cultural attribution appeared in the excavation report241 and was not modi¿ed later either.242 This attribution was con¿rmed by similar ¿nds from north-western Transylvania and Carpatho-Ukraine, and

Sites of the Méhtelek group The Méhtelek group was distributed in the north-easterly region of the Alföld, with its sites located along watercourses and in areas currently covered with marshland. It is possible that the marshlands were devoid of living water during prehistory and were only covered with water in times of Àoods. Knowing that the Tisza and its tributaries were characterised by an extraordinary abundance of ¿sh, it seems likely that ¿sh could be harvested using rudimentary techniques after

Patay 1968. Kalicz–Makkay 1972, 78, Abb. 11. 11–18. According to Pál Patay’s personal communication, ¿nds of the Méhtelek group came to light from a large pit during the excavation of the Fényeslitke cemetery. The ¿nds are housed in the Hungarian National Museum. 239 László Domboróczki discovered the site during a ¿eld survey in 2004. He assigned the surface ¿nds collected at the site to the Körös culture (Domboróczki 2005a, 6, Fig. 1). The later, more systematic survey of the site in 2008 con¿rmed this cultural attribution. The excavation conducted the same year indicated that the ¿nds could be assigned to the Méhtelek group. 240 Domboróczki–Raczky 2010; Gyulai 2010; Kovács et al. 2010; Kaczanowska–Kozáowski 2010; Kreiter 2010. 241 Régészeti Füzetek 1974. 242 Kalicz–Makkay 1974; Kalicz–Makkay 1976. 237

238

Domboróczki 2005b; Domboróczki 2009, 114–118. Domboróczki 2005b. 230 Domboróczki 2005b. 231 Kalicz–Makkay 1976. 232 Domboróczki–Raczky 2010. 233 Tasiü 2000. 234 Weller et al. 2007; Spataro 2008, 94. 235 Nikolov 2005; Havezov–Ruseva 2005. 236 Ursulescu 1984, map of sites on p. 41. 228

229

40

The settlements and the distribution of the Méhtelek group

the Méhtelek type (Fig. 11. 14–16).249 One of these was conical in form (Fig. 11. 13).250

I therefore named the ¿nds of the type brought to light at Méhtelek the Méhtelek group (Fig. 1. 1).243 4.

Nagyecsed–Péterzúg (County Szabolcs-Szatmár) Pottery sherds were collected on the left bank of the Kraszna Channel in 1968 and 1969, during a ¿eld survey conducted together with János Makkay. The ¿nds could be assigned to the Méhtelek group (Fig. 1. 2).244

5.

Szabolcs–Földvár (County Szabolcs-Szatmár) Little has been published of the sounding excavation conducted by Péter Németh at the site in 1961. A few pottery sherds can be assigned to the Körös culture, although it is unclear whether they represent the culture’s Alföld or Méhtelek group. A photo negative of the relevant ¿nds is housed in the Archaeological Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (Fig. 1. 13).

6.

9.

10. Zăuan/Szilágyzovány (jud. Sălaj) The ¿gurines and pottery ¿nds published from the site assign the settlement to the Méhtelek group (Fig. 1. 6, Fig. 11. 3).252 Ukraine 11. Berehovo/Beregszász–Kerekhegy A stray vessel reached Tivadar Lehoczky’s collection in 1896. The vessel can be assigned to the Méhtelek group in view of its ¿ndspot (Fig. 1. 11).253

Tiszabezdéd–Servápa (County Szabolcs-Szatmár) János Makkay collected various ¿nds at the site in 1962. The small ¿nd assemblage can be assigned to the Méhtelek group (Fig. 1. 3).245

12. Dyakovo/Gyakovo Eduard A. Balaguri published a steatopygous ¿gurine with upward gazing, Àat face of the Méhtelek group from the site (Fig. 1. 8, Fig. 57. 1).254

Romania 7. Homorodul de Sus/FelsĘhomoród (jud. Satumare) Fourteen ¿gurines have been published from the site,246 which correspond to the steatopygous pieces of the Méhtelek group. The other ¿nds from the excavation too con¿rm the site’s attribution to the Méhtelek group (Fig. 1. 5).247 8.

PorĠ “Corău” (jud. Sălaj) Although the ¿nds from this site include several ¿gurines, only four of these have been published alongside a selection of the settlement’s ¿nds (Fig. 11. 4). The published pieces can be assigned to the Méhtelek group (Fig. 1. 7).251

13. Rivne/Szernye–KismezĘ The ¿nds of various archaeological cultures were uncovered at the site. One larger and two smaller features yielded typical ¿nds of the Méhtelek group.255 (Fig. 1. 10)

Dudeúti Veche/ÓbesenyĘ The ¿nds from this site are characterised by traits of the Alföld Körös culture.248 Only after Lazarovici’s discussion of the site (Fig. 1. 14) did it become clear that the ¿nds include several oblong slab ¿gurines of

14. Zastavne–Mala Hora/Zapszony–Kishegy Five larger features were uncovered at the site whose rich ¿nds are the perfect counterparts of the material from Méhtelek (Fig. 1. 9, Fig. 11. 1–2).256

Kalicz 1993, Fig. 2. Kalicz–Makkay 1972, Abb. 3; Kalicz–Makkay 1977, 20, 26–27, 146, Cat. no. 270, Taf. 1–2. It must here be noted that János Makkay only noted a partial similarity between the ¿nds from Nagyecsed and the Körös culture (Makkay 2003, 8–10). 245 Kalicz–Makkay 1972, Abb. 4; Kalicz–Makkay 1977, 20, 26–27, 165, Cat. no. 400, Taf. 3, Taf. 84. 2. János Makkay still claims that the pottery ¿nds and ¿gurine fragments collected at the Tiszabezdéd–Servápa site represent the earliest ALP phase (Makkay 1996, 40). In 2005, I examined the ¿nds collected at the site together with Pál Raczky and László Domboróczki (now housed in the Jósa András Museum in Nyíregyháza). We found that all the pottery fragments could be assigned to the Méhtelek group of the Körös culture with the exception of a single sherd, whose manufacturing technique, colour and linear pattern differed from the other ones. It seems likely that the site had been occupied not only during the Körös period, but during a later period of the Neolithic too, explaining how a fragment of the later Linear Pottery period became mixed up with the Körös ¿nds. The fragment in question is de¿nitely later than the Szatmár (i.e. the earliest ALP) period. 246 Bader 1968, 381–388. 247 In the earlier 1970s, during a study trip made together with János Makkay, Tibor Bader kindly showed us the ¿nds from the site kept in the museum at Szatmárnémeti. We ascertained that the ¿nds were the exact counterparts of the assemblage from Méhtelek. 248 Kisléghi Nagy 1911.

Lazarovici 1975, Pl. 4. 1–2; Lazarovici 1976, Pl. 4. 1–2; Lazarovici 1979, Pl. 10. 3–7. 250 Lazarovici 1979, Pl. 10. 2. 251 BăcueĠ-Criúan–Cârstea 2004. 252 Lakó 1977; Lakó 1978. 253 Potushniak 2004, 62. 254 Balaguri 1975, 261–282, Figs 1, 3–5. 255 Potushniak 2004, 59–61. 256 Potushniak 1985, Fig. 37. 3, 11; Potushniak 2004, 53–58.

243

244

249

41

Kalicz_Book.indb 42

2011.12.13. 11:40:02

Chronological position of the Méhtelek group in the Early Neolithic of the Carpathian Basin

basic motifs too differed from the practice of the Alföld Körös culture. Incised linear motifs, network patterns and designs of random lines so popular on the vessels of the Alföld Körös culture are lacking from the Méhtelek group, as are the regular incised zig-zag patterns adorning the vessels in south-eastern Transylvania and Moldavia. The above clearly indicate that the Méhtelek group represents a variant on the fringes of the major Early Neolithic cultural complex. The white on red speckled and linear painting known from Gura Baciului/Bácsitorok, Ocna Sibilui/ Vízakna and ùeuúa in Transylvania, Cârcea and Grădinile in Oltenia, and Donja Branjevina in the Voivodina predated the Méhtelek group. Similar painted wares from a few Körös sites in the Alföld such as Szarvas 8, Szarvas 23, Szarvas 56 and EndrĘd 119259 can likewise be dated earlier than the Méhtelek phase and perhaps the classical Körös phase. The oblong slab ¿gurines reÀect the uniqueness of the Méhtelek group in the Carpathian Basin despite the handful of similar or related pieces known from the southern Alföld Körös culture, Transylvania, Moldavia and Oltenia up to the Danube. Surprisingly enough. several comparable oblong slab ¿gurines (and their slightly modi¿ed variants) came to light on sites south of the Danube in Bulgaria. It would appear that the primary use of these ¿gurines was restricted to the Méhtelek distribution and Bulgaria. Some stylistic traits indirectly suggest that the Méhtelek group can be assigned to a later period of the Körös complex. The most notable among these are the features embodying the heritage of the Méhtelek group in the Szatmár group representing the earliest ALP. These include oblong slab ¿gurines with a triangular head clearly separated from the body which, similarly to the ¿gurines of the Méhtelek group, are turned upward.260 These ¿gurines survived into the classical ALP period.261 Alongside the triangular head form of steatopygous ¿gurines, the tradition of oblong slab ¿gurines was continued by the Szatmár group (early ALP) and the classical ALP period (Middle Neolithic). A similar continuity can be noted in the case of jars with low neck, high-set wide shoulders and elongated, constricted lower part, whose use can be noted in the Szatmár group, although in a slightly modi¿ed form.262 The widespread use of bone spoons in the Szatmár group can likewise be seen as a heritage of the Méhtelek group, even

None of the ¿nds brought to light at Méhtelek could be singled out as reÀecting obvious cultural impacts from other regions and neither did they exhibit any traits suitable for establishing an internal chronology. The primary reason for this is the lack of an internal periodisation of the Alföld Körös sequence based on a typological analysis of the culture’s ceramic assemblages. The pottery of the Méhtelek site is uniform to the extent that no chronological differences can be discerned in it. The basic vessel forms are more or less related to the ceramics of the Alföld Körös culture, most apparent in the case of small and medium sized globular and cylindrical bowls set on small feet. Vessels with these stylistic traits were widespread in both the Alföld Körös culture and the Méhtelek group, and they can be regarded as a clear-cut reÀection of the link between the two regions and the two cultural groups. These vessels did not attain any popularity elsewhere in the Early Neolithic, as shown by the few scattered ¿nds. The basic types of the ceramic inventory were vessels known from the Aegean to the Carpathian Basin during the Early Neolithic, although their frequencies varied. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that the origins of the Méhtelek vessels should not be sought in the southern Alföld Körös culture. It has been noted in the above that most of the vessels in the ceramic assemblage from Méhtelek can be derived from Balkanic-Aegean basic types. The single exception is the large jar with low neck, high-set wide shoulders and constricted base, a vessel type encountered almost exclusively in the Méhtelek group (Fig. 20. 11, 13, Fig. 29. 3, Fig. 40. 3, Fig. 42. 2–3, Fig. 45. 10–11). This vessel type represents an alien form in the corpus of Early Neolithic pottery: it is lacking both from the Körös culture of the Alföld and the Criú culture of Transylvania and Moldavia, as well as from the Starþevo culture and the Balkanic-Aegean culture complex in general. It would seem that this vessel was invented by the potters of the Méhtelek group and that its use was restricted to the group’s distribution. Strongly carinated biconical bowls with a low upper part, sometimes set on a pedestal, a popular form in the Alföld believed to date to the later Körös period, are lacking from the Méhtelek group.257 Another form absent from the Méhtelek group is a biconical bowl type resembling the previous type, popular in south-eastern Transylvania and Moldavia. These biconical bowls have a high upper part and a shorter lower part, and are often set on medium high or high pedestals, the latter occasionally quatrefoil in shape.258 A faint echo of quatrefoil vessel feet can be noted at Méhtelek (Fig. 16. 14). The impressed designs covering the entire vessel surface are another trait speci¿c to the Méhtelek group. While the technique of creating various patterns with mussel shells, ¿ngertips and pinching was adopted from the Alföld Körös culture, the decorative motifs were combined into patterns covering the entire vessel surface and the arrangement of the 257 258

Makkay 1996, Pl. 9. Kalicz–Makkay 1977, Taf. 15. 4 a-c, Taf. 84. 2; Raczky 1988, Fig. 21. 6; Nagy 1998, Pl. 36. 1–3; Nagy 1999, Pl. 1. 1–2, Pl. 2. 1–2, Pl. 3. 1–3; Kalicz–Koós 1997, Abb. 13–14 and 164, Cat. nos 1–2, 4–8, 10–14, 17–18; Kalicz–Koós 2001, Abb. 14. 3–5, Abb. 15. 1–2, 4–6, 8–10; Domboróczki 1997, Fig. 2. and 163–164, Cat. nos 25–29, 55–59; Domboróczki 1999, Figs 14–16; Kovács 2001, Fig. 4. 10; Kovács 2007, Fig. 6. 9. 261 Kalicz–Makkay 1977, Taf. 85. 1–31, Taf. 186. 11, 13, 15–20, 22; Kurucz 1980, Pl. 80. 1; Makkay 1999, ¿gure on p. 54; Raczky–Anders 2003, Fig. 2. 1–5, Fig. 3. 1, 3–5. 262 Domboróczki 1997, 163, Cat. no. 41, and 164, Cat. no. 63; Kalicz–Koós 2001, Abb. 19. 10, Abb. 21. 4; Kovács 2001, Fig. 7. 1–2; Kovács 2007, Fig. 11. 3–5; Kurucz 1989, Pl. 59.1; Raczky 1988, Fig. 10. 4 (KĘtelek), Fig. 26. 10, Fig. 27. 4 (Tiszavalk), Fig. 21. 6. 259

260

Raczky 1988, Fig. 5. 3, 6, 9, Fig. 6. 8, Fig. 7. 1–9. Zaharia 1962, Fig. 4. 1–14, Fig. 5. 1–10; Ursulescu 1984, Pl. 17. 17, Pl. 29. 16, Pl. 40. 8.

43

Chronological position of the Méhtelek group in the Early Neolithic of the Carpathian Basin

span the classical and late phase of the Körös sequence. The radiocarbon dates from the Ibrány settlement of the Méhtelek group fall into roughly the same range (5550–5480 BC and 5620–5535 BC), namely the late phase of the Alföld Körös culture, although with a slight overlap with the early Szatmár group.264 The dates for Slavkovce (Slovakia), perhaps representing the later Szatmár phase, too indicate the partial contemporaneity of the late Körös and the Szatmár group.265 With the exception of the southerly regions of the Carpathian Basin (Gura Baciului/Bácsitorok, pre-Criú type),266 there are no dates from around 6000 BC for the earliest Neolithic in the Carpathian Basin. The currently available dates indicate that the Méhtelek group was contemporaneous with the classical and late Körös period, a date accepted by most prehistorians.

though the bone spoons of the Szatmár group were not carved from cattle metapodials as in the Méhtelek group, but from more easily workable ribs. The above typological similarities with the Szatmár group succeeding the Körös culture suggest that the Méhtelek group can be assigned to the later Körös period despite the lack of direct archaeological evidence. Three radiocarbon dates are available for the Méhtelek group, all obtained from charcoal samples. The three dates have a 68 per cent probability:263 6835±60 BP/5780– 5640 BC (Bln-1331), 6665±60 BP/5640–5520 BC (Bln-1332) and 6625±50 BP/5620–5480 BC (GrN-6897). The three dates, provided by two different laboratories, give a fairly wide range with a difference of 300 years, even though two samples were collected from the same settlement feature. The dates

Domboróczki–Raczky 2010, 214–215. Kozáowski–Nowak 2010, 79. 266 Biagi et al. 2005; Lazarovici 2006. 264

265 263

I would here like to thank Krisztián Oross for calibrating the data.

44

Origins of the Méhtelek group

Körös expansion to the north. In their view, the “Méhtelek group of the Criú culture” had a smaller distribution.274 In my view, the Körös groups along the Tisza and in the Ér Valley were the main components in the formation of the Méhtelek group, while the culture’s Transylvanian branch played a more subordinate role as shown by the handful of slab ¿gurines from south-eastern Transylvania and Moldavia, as well as the piece known from Gura Baciului/Bácsitorok (whose exact chronological position remains unclear). The possible role of painted pottery, little known from the current archaeological record, might also be considered. I see no difference whatsoever between the artefactual material of the Criú culture of northern Transylvania and the Körös culture of the Alföld. It seems to me that the ceramic traits which have no parallels or antecedents either in the Alföld or in Transylvania were innovations introduced by the potters of the Méhtelek group. (However, I would here cautiously refer to the parallels of the somewhat similar, impressed decoration of the Bug–Dniester culture and the possible role of salt.) The detailed assessment of the ¿nds from Méhtelek suggested to me that the emergence of the Méhtelek group was ¿rst and foremost stimulated by cultural impacts from the Alföld Körös culture. This is principally indicated by the presence of bowls set on small feet and their variants in both the Méhtelek distribution and the Alföld. Bowls of this type occur most frequently in these two archaeological units. While a handful of similar pieces are known from other areas of the Carpathian Basin and farther to the south, as far as the southern Balkans, they play a negligible role in the ceramic inventory of those cultures. The other vessel forms, such as conical bowls, large globular and oval vessels, Àasks and the like, can be seen as products of the South-East European Early Neolithic, mediated northward to the Méhtelek group by the Körös culture. The single exception in this respect is the wide-shouldered jar which has no counterpart in the contemporary Early Neolithic cultures, and thus seems to be a vessel type introduced by the Méhtelek potters. None of the pottery wares from Méhtelek could be derived from Transylvania and neither did I ¿nd any evidence for a more distant origin mediated through Transylvania, the single exception being the quatrefoil, clover shaped vessel foot reÀecting contact with Transylvania. The same holds true for the decorative motifs, such as ¿nger impressions and single and paired pinched motifs covering the vessel surface, which were adopted by the Méhtelek potters and adjusted to their own taste. The preponderance of patterns created from impressed dots and wedge shaped impressions is another trait peculiar to the Méhtelek group. The origins of the oblong slab ¿gurines continues to elude research. As mentioned in the above, ¿gurines of this type and their variants with round sectioned bodies occur in great number in the Méhtelek group. It is my belief that slab ¿gurines and related imagery evolved from the ¿gurines

Several different theories have been proposed for the origins of the Méhtelek group exactly because of the unusual nature of the ¿nds and the few published assemblages. The origin of the Méhtelek group was initially sought in Transylvania owing to the striking similarities with the ¿gurines from Homorodul de Sus/FelsĘhomoród267 and the belief, based on the then available archaeological evidence, that the northern boundary of the Alföld Körös distribution lay at quite some distance.268 During the past few decades, however, a series of Körös settlements have been discovered in County Bihar in Romania: the ¿nds from these sites along the Ér, the Szamos and their tributaries have much in common with the Körös material from the Alföld.269 Farther to the north in the Szilágyság, sites yielding mixed assemblages of the southern Alföld Körös culture and the Méhtelek group can be noted, especially regarding ¿gurines.270 The formerly enigmatic gap between Méhtelek and the southern Alföld Körös culture was thus bridged and it seems likely that the Körös communities advancing northward followed the Ér Valley and simply avoided the sandy region of the Nyírség. During his systematic ¿eld surveys, László Domboróczki discovered a site of the southern Alföld Körös culture at TiszaszĘlĘs–Domaháza, lying some 30 km north of the northern boundary assumed by János Makkay and myself. The excavation of the TiszaszĘlĘs site, lying along the Tisza, conclusively proved that the formerly assumed northern Körös boundary was illusory. The observations made during the site’s investigation also furnished evidence for the relative chronology of the Körös culture and the Szatmár group based on the stratigraphic position of various features.271 Pál Raczky and Alexandra Anders clari¿ed the chronological relations between the Szatmár group and the later ALP phase in the light of stratigraphic observations.272 Three routes leading to the Upper Tisza region used by Körös communities could thus be distinguished: one along the Tisza, the other along the Ér Valley (in the Partium), and a third in the Szamos Valley. These routes clarify various aspects of cultural contacts. Raczky has argued for the primacy of the Transylvanian branch in the emergence of the Early Neolithic in the Middle Tisza region. In his view, the Méhtelek group had principally evolved under cultural impacts from the Criú culture. The Méhtelek group encountered the Alföld Körös culture somewhere in the southerly part of eastern Hungary and thus the Alföld Körös culture can hardly be regarded as the main stimulus behind the formation of the Méhtelek group.273 Zsolt Mester and Béla Rácz focused on the possible correlations between lithic raw material deposits and the Bader 1968. Kalicz–Makkay 1976, 23. 269 IgnaĠ 1978; IgnaĠ 1998, 122–124; IgnaĠ et al. 2000. 270 E.g. Lakó 1978, Pl. 7. 271 Domboróczki 2009; Domboróczki 2010; Domboróczki– Raczky 2010. 272 Raczky–Anders 2009. 273 Raczky 1979–80, 14; Raczky 1983; Raczky 1986; Raczky 1988, 27–32. 267

268

274

45

Mester– Rácz 2010, 30, Fig. 5.

Origins of the Méhtelek group

circumscribable distribution). I therefore retained the Szatmár label despite Raczky’s disapproval of its usage, but discarded the numerals marking the phases because the use of Szatmár II would have made no sense after the elimination of Szatmár I. I still believe that the use of the dual term (earliest ALP phase and Szatmár group) is justi¿ed. In the preliminary report on the Méhtelek excavation, we speci¿ed our reasons for modifying the earlier terminology and for interpreting the Méhtelek settlement as a site of the Körös culture.278 The detailed evaluation of the ¿nds from Méhtelek leaves no doubt that the site can be assigned to the Early Neolithic Körös complex despite the unique traits which warranted the introduction of the label Méhtelek group. The ¿nds from the Méhtelek site and the related assemblages have no relation whatsoever with the ALP, and can hardly be interpreted as representing the earliest, formative ALP phase as suggested by Juraj Pavúk.279 It seems likely that owing to the small selection of the ¿nds published in the preliminary report, he misunderstood the origins, the cultural context and the chronological position of the Méhtelek group, this being the reason that he argued that the Méhtelek group was not part of the Körös culture, but should be interpreted as the formative ALP phase. However, the formative ALP phase is represented by the Szatmár group as de¿ned by Pál Raczky.280 The signi¿cance of the Méhtelek settlement, a site on the periphery of the Körös distribution, lies in its role in the acquisition and redistribution of various lithic raw materials, principally of obsidian, which is represented by two varieties (Carpathian 1 and 2). Other lithic raw materials include limnoquartzite, andesite and various Àints.281 The Méhtelek communities established contact both with the various, as yet little known northern hunter-forager groups controlling the obsidian deposits (who had not made the shift to a Neolithic life-style) and the Early Neolithic communities in the south. The communities of the Méhtelek group became actors and, to some extent, forgers of a long-distance trade network, explaining how a few pieces of Banat Àint and Transdanubian radiolarite reached the Méhtelek distribution. It is also possible that the Méhtelek communities played a role in the trade of salt from Solotina/Aknaszlatina. These cultural contacts contributed to the emergence of the singular character of the Méhtelek group, best reÀected by the pottery wares and the ritual paraphernalia, which, with the exception of the oblong slab ¿gurines, can be derived from the Alföld Körös culture. The Méhtelek group undoubtedly played a key role in the Early Neolithic of the Carpathian Basin.

carved from wood in pre-Neolithic times. While a handful of oblong slab ¿gurines is known from the southern Alföld Körös culture and from Transylvania (the ¿gurine from Gura Baciului/Bácsitorok can be ranked among the earliest ¿nds of the early Criú culture), as well as from a number of sites in Moldavia and Oltenia, a similarly rich corpus of comparable ¿gurines is known only from Bulgaria. The trade in obsidian was proposed as one possible explanation for this phenomenon. However, obsidian occurs but rarely among the lithic ¿nds from Bulgaria, meaning that the fall-off of the assumed extensive obsidian trade was low in Bulgaria. It seems to me that there was some other reason for the maintenance of cultural contacts between the two regions and that these contacts were probably indirect, rather than direct. Securely dated evidence for the exploitation and use of salt is currently only available for the Middle Neolithic. However, investigations in the northerly areas of Romanian Moldavia have indicated that the exploitation of salt deposits was begun already during the Early Neolithic.275 In the case of the Méhtelek group, we may perhaps assume that the salt deposits in the Solotina/Aknaszlatina area in the Ukraine, worked until modern times, had been exploited from an early date and that the Méhtelek communities played an active role in its trade. The salt deposits in Moldavia can perhaps also be considered in this respect. An old misunderstanding must be dispelled regarding the relative chronology of Méhtelek group. In the 1960s, we established that there was an Early Neolithic presence in the Upper Tisza region. However, the handful of ¿nds known at the time did not enable a precise cultural attribution, although we did manage to distinguish two main typological groups, each with its own sites: one was more archaic and echoed certain traits of the Körös culture, the other was later and characterised by various traits of the later ALP. The two types were labelled Szatmár I and Szatmár II.276 In our comprehensive study on the ALP, we described the ¿nds known at the time as representing the initial phase of the ALP (Szatmár I and II).277 The book had been submitted for publication in 1972, but was only published several years later, in 1977. We excavated the Méhtelek site during this time and realised that Szatmár I was in fact part of the Körös complex and could hardly be directly associated with the ALP, the implication being that this label was unsuitable for describing the ¿nds from Méhtelek and related assemblages. The label Szatmár could only be applied to assemblages representing the earliest or formative ALP phase (which, in my view, can be characterised by clear-cut typological features and a well-

Tasiü 2000; Weller–Dumitroaia 2005; Nikolov 2005; Monah–Dumitroaia 2007; Weller et al. 2007. 276 Kalicz–Makkay 1972; Kalicz–Makkay 1977, 18–29. 277 Kalicz–Makkay 1977, 18–29.

Kalicz–Makkay 1976. Pavúk 1994, 139–141; Pavúk 2004, 74. 280 Raczky 1983; Raczky 1986. 281 Starnini 1993; Starnini 1994.

275

278

279

46

References

presented at the Third International Symposium. Ed. Clive Bonsall. Edinburgh, 475–480. Busch, Ralf (ed.) 1981: Jungsteinzeit in Bulgarien: Neolithikum und Äneolithikum. Ausstellungskatalog. Wunstorf 1981. Chapman, John 1987: Technological and stylistic analyses of the Early Neolithic chipped stone assemblage from Méhtelek, Hungary. In Proceedings of the Ist International Conference on prehistoric Àint mining and lithic raw material identi¿cation in the Carpathian Basin. Ed. Katalin T. Biró. Budapest, 31–52. Chapman, John 2001: Object Fragmentation in the Neolithic and Copper Age of South-east Europe. In The Archaeology of Cult and Religion. Eds Peter Biehl, François Bertemes and Harald Müller. Budapest, 89–105. Chapman, John 2002: Neolithic pottery at Polgár-10 (Hungary): measuring the habitus. Documenta Praehistorica 29, 127–144. Ciută, Marius Mihai 2005: Începuturile neolitcului timpuriu în spaĠiul intracarpatic Transilvănean. Bibliotheca Universitatis Apulensis XII. Alba Iulia. ýochadžiev, Michail 1983: Die Ausgrabungen der neolithischen Siedlung in Pernik. Nachrichten aus Niedersachsens Urgeschichte 52, 29–68. Comúa, Eugen 1960: La civilisation Criú sur le territoire de la R. P. Roumaine. Acta Archaeologica Carpathica 1, 173– 190. Comúa, Eugen 1978: Contribution à l’étude de la culture Criú en Moldavie (le site de Glăvăneútii Vechi). Dacia 22, 9–36. Comúa, Eugen 1981: Betrachtungen über den PÀanzenbau während der Jungsteinzeit auf dem Gebiet Rumäniens. Arbeits- und Forschungsberichte zur sächsischen BodendenkmalpÀege Beiheft 16, 111–127. Comúa, Eugen 1982: ConsideraĠii cu privire la relaĠiile dintre cultura Criú úi cultura bugo-nistriană. Crisia 12, 9–18. Comúa, Eugen 1987: Betrachtungen über die Entwicklung der neolithischen Kulturen auf rumänischem Gebiet. Slovenská Archeológia 35, 65–103. Danilenko, Vladimir N. 1969: Neolit Ukrainy. Kiev. Demoule, Jean-Paul and Lichardus-Itten, Marion 1994: Les fouilles franco-bulgares du site néolithique ancien de Kovaþevo: Rapport préliminaire (campagnes 1986–1993). Bulletin de correspondance Héllénique118, 561–618. Detev, Peter 1959: Materiali za praistoriyata na Plovdiv (Materiaux de la prèhistoire de Plovdiv), Godishnik na Narodniya Arkheologicheski Muzej v Plovdiv 3, 3–80. Detev, Peter 1960: Razkopk na selishtnata mogila Jasatepe v Plovdiv prez 1959 g. (Fouilles du tell Yassatepe à Plovdiv en 1959). Godishnik na Narodniya Arkheologicheski Muzej v Plovdiv 4, 5–59. Dimitrijeviü, Stojan 1966: Arheološka iskopavanja na podruþju Vinkovaþkog muzeja: rezultati 1957-1965. Vinkovci.

Aranÿeloviü-Garašanin, Draga 1954: Starþevaþka kultura. Ljubljana. BăcueĠ-Criúan, Sanda and Cârstea, Anamaria 2004: Plastică antropomorfâ neolitică de la PorĠ ”Corău” (Jud. Sălaj). Acta Musei Porolissensis 26, 11–13. Baþkalov, Aleksandar 1979: Predmeti od kosti i roga u preneolitu i neolitu Srbije (Bone and antler objects in the Pre-Neolithic and Neolithic of Serbia). Beograd. Bader, Tiberiu 1968: Despre ¿gurinele antropomorfe în cadrul culturii Criú (Beiträge zur Kenntnis anthropomorpher Figurinen aus der Criú-Kultur). Acta Musei Napocensis 5, 381–388. Balaguri, Eduard A. 1975: Issledovanija archeologiþeskich pamjatnikow Sakarpaty sa gody sowjetskov vlasti (Untersuchung archäologischer Fundstellen in der KarpatoUkraine in den Jahren der Sowjetmacht). Slovenská Archeológia 23, 261–282. Banner, János 1932: A kopáncsi és kotacparti neolithikus telepek és a tiszai kultúra III. periódusa (Die neolithische Ansiedlungen von HódmezĘvásárhely–Kopáncs und Kotacpart und die III. Periode der Theiss-Kultur). Dolgozatok 8, 1–31. Banner, János, 1937: Die Ethnologie der Körös-Kultur. Dolgozatok 13, 32–49. Banner, János 1940: HódmezĘvásárhely története a honfoglalás koráig I (History of HódmezĘvásárhely up to the Hungarian Conquest period). Szeged. Banner, János 1942: Das Tisza-, Maros- und Körös-Gebiet bis zur Entwicklung der Bronzezeit. Szeged. Banner, János and Párducz, Mihály 1948: Újabb adatok DélMagyarország újabb kĘkorához (Contributions nouvelles à l’histoire du néolithique en Hongrie). Archaeologiai ÉrtesítĘ III/7–9, 19–41. Berciu, Dinu 1952: Săpăturile de la VerbiĠa. Studii úi Cercetări de Istorie Veche 3, 158–162. Biagi, Paolo, Shennan, Stephen and Spataro, Michela 2005: Rapid rivers and slow seas? New data for the radiocarbon chronology of the Balkan Peninsula. In Prehistoric Archaeology & Anthopological Theory and Education. Report of Prehistoric Research Projects 6–7. Eds Lolita Nikolova, John Fritz and Jude Higgins. Salt Lake City– Karlovo, 41–50. BoroneanĠ, Vasile 1970: La civilization Criú de Cuina Turcului. In Actes du VIIe Congrès International des Sciences Préhistoriques et Protohistoriques Prague 21–17 août 1966. Ed. Jan Filip. Prague, 407–410. BoroneanĠ, Vasile 1973a: Recherches archéologiques sur la culture Schela Cladovei, de la zone des Portes de Fer. Dacia 17, 5–39. BoroneanĠ, Vasile 1973b: Inceputurile cultivӽrii pămintului in zona PorĠilor de ¿er (Beginings of the land cultivation in the Danube, Iron Gates zone). Terra Nostra III, 115–123. BoroneanĠ, Vasile 1989: Thoughts on the chronological relations between the Epi-Palaeolithic and the Neolithic of the Low Danube. In The Mesolithic in Europe. Papers 47

References

Starþevo/Körös Culture. Eds Janusz K. Kozáowski and Pál Raczky. Kraków–Budapest, 137–176. Domboróczki, László and Raczky, Pál 2010: Excavations at Ibrány–NagyerdĘ and the Northernmost Distribution of the Körös Culture in Hungary. In Neolithization of the Carpathian Basin: Northernmost Distribution of the Starþevo/Körös Culture. Eds Janusz K. Kozáowski and Pál Raczky. Kraków–Budapest, 191–218. Draúovean, Florin 1990: ObservaĠii pe marginea unor materiale inedite privind raporturile dintre culturile Starþevo–Criú, Vinþa A úi lumea liniară in nordul Banatului (Betrachtungen anhand unveröffentlichter archäologischer Fundstücke betreffend die Beziehungen zwischen der Kulturen Starþevo–Criú, Vinþa A und der Kultur der Linearkeramik im Norden des Banats). Apulum 26, 9–48. Draúovean, Florin 2006: The Starþevo–Criú and Vinþa transition in Northern Banat. In From Starþevo to Vinþa culture. Current problems of the transition period. Ed. Bogdan Brukner. Zrenjanin, 93–109. Ecsedy, István 1972: Dévaványa, Réhelyi gát (Kom. Békés). Mitteilungen des Archäologischen Instituts der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 3, 153–154. Edgü, Ferit 1983: The Anatolian Civilisation. Exhibition Catalogue. Istanbul. Fewkes, Vladimir, Goldman, Hetty and Ehrich, Robert 1933: Excavations at Starþevo, Yugoslavia, seasons 1931 and 1932. A preliminary report. Bulletin of the American School of Prehistoric Research 9, 33–54. Füzes, Miklós 1989: A földmívelés kezdeti szakaszának (neolitikum és rézkor) növényleletei Magyarországon (PÀanzenfunde in Ungarn der anfänglichen Entwicklunsphase des Ackerbaues). A tapolcai Városi Múzeum közleményei 1, 139–238. Garašanin, Milutin 1979: Centralnobalkanska zona. In Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja II. Neolitsko doba. Ed. Alois Benac. Sarajevo, 79–212. Georgiev, Georgi I. 1958: Ɇɧɦɨɦɢɧɨɣɫɤɹ ɧɚɩɫɴ. Vestnik Drevnej Istorii 3, 106–110. Georgiev, Georgi I. 1961: Der Übergang vom Neolithikum zur frühen Bronzezeit auf dem Balkan und an der unteren Donau. In L’Europe à la ¿n de l’âge de la pierre. Eds Jaroslaw Böhm and Sigfried J. De Laet. Praha, 45–100. Georgiev, Georgi I. 1967: Beiträge zur Erforschung des Neolithikums und der Bronzezeit in Südbulgarien. Archaeologica Austriaca 42, 90–144. Georgiev, Georgi I. 1981: Die neolithische Siedlung bei ýavdar, Bezirk So¿a. In Cultures préhistoriques en Bulgarie. Eds Georgi I. Georgiev and Maria Chichilova. So¿a, 63–109. Gimbutas, Marija 1972: Excavation at Anza, Macedonia. Archaeology 25, 112–123. Gimbutas, Marija 1974: The Gods and Goddesses of Old Europe 7000 to 3500 BC. London. Gimbutas, Marija (ed.) 1976: Neolithic Macedonia as ReÀected by Excavations at Anza, Southeast Yugoslavia. Monumenta Archaeologica 1. Los Angeles. Gimbutas, Marija 1982: The goddesses and gods of Old Europe, 6500–3500 BC: myths and cult images. Berkeley. Gimbutas, Marija 1989: Achilleion: A Neolithic settlement in Thessaly, Greece, 6400–5600 BC. Monumenta Archaeologica 14. Los Angeles.

Dimitrijeviü, Stojan 1969a: Das Neolithikum in Syrmien, Slavonien und Nordwestkroatien: Einführung in der Stand der Forschung. Archaeologia Iugoslavica 10, 39–76. Dimitrijeviü, Stojan 1969b: Starþevacka kultura u Slavonskosrijemkom prostoru i problem prijelaza ranog u srednji neolit u srpskom i hrvatskom podunavlju. In Simpozij neolit i eneolit u Slavoniji, Vukovar, 4–5 lipnja 1966. Eds Dionizije Švagelj and Antun Dorn. Vukovar, 9–96. Dimitrijeviü, Stojan 1974: Problem stupnjevanja Starþevaþke kulture s posebnim obzirom na doprinos južnopanonskih nalažista rješavanju ovih problema (Das Problem der Gliederung der Starþevo-Kultur mit besonderer Rücksicht auf den Beitrag der südpannonischen Fundstellen zur Lösung dieses Problems). Materijali 10, 59–121. Dimitrijeviü, Stojan 1979: Sjeverna zona. In Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja II. Neolitsko doba. Ed. Alojz Benac. Sarajevo, 229–362. Domboróczki, László 1997: Füzesabony–Gubakút. ÚjkĘkori falu a Kr. e. VI. évezredbĘl (Füzesabony–Gubakút. Neolithic village from the 6th millennium BC). In Utak a múltba. Az M3-as autópálya régészeti leletmentései – Paths into the past. Rescue excavations on the M3 Motorway. Eds Pál Raczky, Tibor Kovács and Alexandra Anders. Budapest, 19–27. Domboróczki, László 1999: The older phase of the neolithic in North-eastern Hungary in the light of archaeological ¿nds from Heves County. In Early farmers in Europe. Ed. László Domboróczki. Eger, 9–47. Domboróczki, László 2001: The excavations at Füzesabony– Gubakút. Preliminary report. In From the Mesolithic to the Neolithic. Proceedings of the International Archaeological Conference held in the Damjanich Museum of Szolnok, September 22–27, 1996. Eds Róbert Kertész and János Makkay. Budapest, 193–214. Domboróczki, László 2005a: A háromszögletĦ AVK-fejek szimbolikája (The symbolism of triangular ALP heads). Agria 41, 5–44. Domboróczki, László 2005b: A Körös-kultúra északi elterjedési határának problematikája a TiszaszĘlĘsDomaháza-pusztán végzett ásatás eredményeinek fényében (The problem of the northern extension of the Körös Culture in the light of the excavation results from TiszaszĘlĘsDomaháza). Archaeometriai MĦhely 2005:2, 5–15. online: http://www.ace.hu/am/2005_2/AM-2005-2-DL.pdf Domboróczki, László 2006: A füzesabony-gubakúti településtörténeti modell. Új eredmények a Tisza-vidéki középsĘ neolitikum településtörténeti kutatása terén (A settlement history modell of Füzesabony-Gubakút: Recent research ¿ndings on Middle-Neolithic settlement history in the Tisza Region). Agria 42, 475–485. Domboróczki, László 2009: Settlement structures of the Alföld Linear Pottery Culture (ALPC) in Heves County (North-Eastern Hungary): development models and historical reconstructions on micro, meso and macro levels. In Interactions between different models of Neolithization north of the Central European agro-ecological barrier. Ed. Janusz K. Kozáowski. Kraków, 75–127. Domboróczki, László 2010: Report on the excavation at TiszaszĘlĘs–Domaháza-puszta and a new model for the spread of the Körös culture. In Neolithization of the Carpathian Basin: Northernmost Distribution of the 48

References

Kalicz, Nándor 1990: Frühneolithische Siedlungsfunde aus Südwestungarn. Inventaria Praehistorica Hungariae 4. Budapest. Kalicz, Nándor 1993: The Early Phases of the Neolithic in Western Hungary (Transdanubia). Poroþilo o raziskovanju paleolitika, neolitika in eneolitika v Sloveniji 21, 85–135. Kalicz, Nándor 2000: Unterscheidungsmerkmale zwischen der Körös- und der Starþevo-Kultur in Ungarn. In Karanovo III. Beiträge zum Neolithikum in Südosteuropa. Eds Stefan Hiller and Vassil Nikolov. Wien, 295–309. Kalicz, Nándor 2011: Méhtelek. In The First Neolithic Sites in Central/South-East European Transect. Vol. III. The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary. Eds Alexandra Anders and Zsuzsanna Siklósi. In press. Kalicz, Nándor and Koós, Judit 1997a: MezĘkövesd– Mocsolyás. ÚjkĘkori telep és temetkezések a Kr. e. VI. évezredbĘl (MezĘkövesd–Mocsolyás. Neolithic settlement and graves from the 6th millennium B.C.). In Utak a múltba. Az M3-as autópálya régészeti leletmentései – Paths into to the past. Rescue excavations on the M3 Motorway. Eds Pál Raczky, Tibor Kovács and Alexandra Anders. Budapest 1997, 28–33, 164–168. Kalicz, Nándor and Koós, Judit 1997: Eine Siedlung mit ältestneolithischen Hausresten und Gräbern in Nordostungarn. In Antidoron Dragoslavo Srejoviü. Ed. Miroslav Laziü. Beograd, 123–135. Kalicz, Nándor and Koós, Judit 2001: Eine Siedlung mit ältestneolithischen Gräbern in Nordostungarn. Preistoria Alpina 37, 45–79. Kalicz, Nándor and Koós, Judit 2011: Az elsĘ megtelepülĘk Dél-Borsodban (Magyarország) Kr.e. a 6. évezredben. Régészeti Emlékek Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén megyében (The ¿rst settlers in South-Borsod, Hungary. in the 6th millenium B.C. Archeological Monuments in BorsodAbaúj-Zemplén county). In press. Kalicz, Nándor and Makkay, János 1966: Die Probleme der Linearkeramik im Alföld. Acta Antiqua et Archaeologica 10, 35–47. Kalicz, Nándor and Makkay, János 1972: Probleme des frühen Neolithikums der nördlichen Tiefebene. Alba Regia 12, 77–92. Kalicz, Nándor and Makkay, János 1974a: A méhteleki agyagistenek (Clay gods from Méhtelek). Nyíregyháza. Kalicz, Nándor and Makkay, János 1974b: A méhteleki ásatások jelentĘsége (Relevance of the excavations at Méhtelek). Szabolcs-Szatmári Szemle February, 78–84. Kalicz, Nándor and Makkay, János 1976: Frühneolithische Siedlung in Méhtelek–Nádas. Mitteilungen des Archäologischen Instituts der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 6, 13–24. Kalicz, Nándor and Makkay, János 1977: Die Linienbandkeramik in der Großen Ungarischen Tiefebene. Studia Archaeologica 7. Budapest. Karmanski, Sergej 1968: Žrtvenici, statuete i amuleti sa lokaliteta Donja Branjevina kod Deronja. Odžaci. Karmanski, Sergej 1975: Rani Neolit – Donja Branjevina. Katalog izložbe. Odžaci 1975. Karmanski, Sergej 1977: Katalog antropomorfne i zoomorfne plastike iz okoline Odžaka. Odžaci 1977. Karmanski, Sergej 1979: Donja Branjevina. Odžaci. Karmanski, Sergej 1988: Donja Branjevina. In The neolithic of Serbia. Ed. Dragoslav Srejoviü. Belgrade, 75–76.

Gimbutas, Marija 1991: The Civilization of the Goddess. The World of Old Europe. San Francisco. Gurova, Maria and Gatsov, Ivan 2000: Research Problems of the Early Neolithic Flint Assemblages in Thrace (Bulgaria). In Karanovo III. Beiträge zum Neolithikum in Südosteuropa. Eds Stefan Hiller and Vassil Nikolov. Wien, 155–163. Gyulai, Ferenc 2010: Archaeobotanical research at the Körös Culture site of Ibrány–NagyerdĘ and its relationship to plant remains from contemporaneous sites in Hungary. In Neolithization of the Carpathian Basin: Northernmost Distribution of the Starþevo/Körös Culture. Eds Janusz K. Kozáowski and Pál Raczky. Kraków–Budapest, 219–237. Hansen, Svend 2007: Bilder vom Menschen der Steinzeit. Untersuchungen der antropomorphen Plastik der Jungsteinzeit und der Kupferzeit in Südosteuropa I–II. Archäologie in Eurasien 20. Mainz. Havezov, Ivan and Ruseva, Elena 2005: Danni za proizvodstvo na sol kraj Provadija prez ksinja neolit: ijachimicheskij izsledvanija (Evidence for late Neolithic salt production near Plovdiv: chemical analyses). Arheologija 46, 117–119. Höckmann, Olaf 1968: Die menschengestaltige Figuralplastik der südosteuropäischen Jungsteinzeit und Steinkupferzeit I–II. Hildesheim. Höglinger, Peter 1997: Neolithisches Bein- und Geweihgerät. In Karanovo I. Die Ausgrabungen im Südsektor 1984– 1992. Eds Stefan Hiller and Vassil Nikolov. ÖsterreichischBulgarische Ausgrabungen und Forschungen in Karanovo. Salzburg–So¿a, 157–196. Iercoúan, NeĠa 1994–95: Săpături arheologice in aúezarea neolitică aparĠinănd culturii Starþevo-Criú de la Tăúnad– Sere (Jud. Satu Mare). Satumare 12, 10–23. IgnaĠ, Doina 1978: Aúezarea neolitică aparĠinînd culturii Criú de la Suplacu Barcău (j. Bihor) (Le habitat néolithique à culture Criú de Suplacu Barcău, départ. Bihor). Crisia 8, 7–28. IgnaĠ, Doina 1979: Aúezarea neolitică aparĠinînd culturii Starþevo–Criú de la Fughiu (j. Bihor) (Le habitat néolithique appartenant à la culture Starþevo–Criú de Fughiu, Departement de Bihor). Crisia 9, 721–733. IgnaĠ, Doina 1998: Grupul cultural neolitic Suplacu de Barcău. Timiúoara, IgnaĠ, Doina, Hajdú, Zsigmond and Nagy, Emese Gy. 2000: „ğara Bihorului”. Neoliticul în judetele Bihor úi HajdúBihar – „Biharország”. Bihar és Hajdú-Bihar neolitikuma. Oradea–Nagyvárad 1999 and DebreĠin–Debrecen 2000. Kaczanowska, Malgorzata and Kozáowski, Janusz K. 1987: “Barbotubo” (Starþevo–Körös) and Linear Complex evolution or independent development of lithic industries? Arheološki Radovi i Rasprave 10, 25–52. Kaczanowska, Maágorzata and Kozáowski, Janusz K. 2010: Chipped stone industry from Ibrány. In Neolithization of the Carpathian Basin: Northernmost Distribution of the Starþevo/Körös Culture. Eds Janusz K. Kozáowski and Pál Raczky. Kraków–Budapest, 254–265. Kalicz, Nándor 1970: Clay gods. The Neolithic period and the Copper Age in Hungary. Budapest. Kalicz, Nándor 1983: Die Körös-Starþevo-Kulturen und ihre Beziehungen zur Linienbandkeramik. Nachrichten aus Niedersachsens Urgeschichte 52, 91–130.

49

References

Lazarovici, Gheorghe 1975: Unele probleme ale ceramicii neolitice din Banat. Banatica 3, 7–24. Lazarovici, Gheorghe 1976: Fragen der neolthischen Keramik in Banat. In Festschrift für Richard Pittioni zum siebzigsten Geburtstag. Eds Herwig Friesinger, Richard Pittioni and Herbert Mitscha-Marheim. Wien, 203–224. Lazarovici, Gheorghe 1977: Gornea Preistorie. ReúiĠa. Lazarovici, Gheorghe 1979: Neoliticul Banatului (Das Neolithikum in Banat). Bibliotheca Musei Napocensis IV. Cluj–Napoca. Lazarovici, Gheorghe 1980: Cîteva probleme privind sfîrúitul neoliticului timpuriu din Nordvestul României (Einige Fragen zum Ende des Frühneolithikums aus Nord-WestRumänien). Acta Musei Napocensis 17, 13–30. Lazarovici, Gheorghe 1984: Neoliticul timpuriu în România. Acta Musei Porolissensis 8, 40–104. Lazarovici, Gheorghe 1993: Les Carpates Meridionales et la Transylvanie. In Atlas du Néolithique Européen 1. L’Euope orientale. Ed. Janusz K. Kozáowski. ERAUL 45. Liège, 243–284. Lazarovici, Gheorghe 2006: The Anzabegovo–Gura Baciului Axis and the First Stage of the Neolithization Process in Southern–Central Europe and the Balkans. In Hommage à Milutin Garašanin. Eds Nikola Tasiü and Cvetan Grozdanov. Belgrade, 111–158. Lazarovici, Gheorghe and Maxim, Zoia 1995: Gura Baciului. Monogra¿e arheologică. Cluj–Napoca. Lichardus-Itten, Marion, Demoule, Jean-Paul, Perniþeva, Liljana, Grebska-Kulova, Malgoržata and Kulov, Ilia 2000: Zur bemalten Keramik aus der frühneolithischen Siedlung von Kovaþevo. In Karanovo III. Beiträge zum Neolithikum in Südosteuropa. Eds Stefan Hiller and Vassil Nikolov. Wien, 27–50. Lichardus-Itten, Marion, Demoule, Jean-Paul, Perniþeva, Liljana, Grebska-Kulova, Malgoržata and Kulov, Ilia 2002: The site of Kovaþevo and the Beginnings of the Neolithic Period in Southwestern Bulgaria. In Beiträge zu jungsteinzeitlichen Forschungen in Bulgarien. Eds Marion Lichardus-Itten, Jean-Paul Demoule and Vassil Nikolov. Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 74. Bonn, 99– 158. Lichardus-Itten, Marion and Lichardus, Jan 2003: Strukturelle Grundlagen zum Verständnis der Neolithisierungsprozesse in Südost- und Mitteleuropa. In Morgenrot der Kulturen. Frühe Etappen der Menschheitsgeschichte in Mittel- und Südosteuropa. Festschrift für Nándor Kalicz zum 75. Geburtstag. Eds Erzsébet Jerem and Pál Raczky. Budapest, 61–81. Lichardus-Itten, Marion and Lichardus, Jan 2004: Frühneolithische Häuser im balkano-karpatischen Raum als Grundlagen linearbandkeramischer Bauweise. In Festschrift für Jozef Vladár zum 70. Geburtstag. Eds Jozef Bátora, Václav Furmánek and Ladislav Veliaþik. Nitra, 25–56 Lichter, Clemens (ed.) 2007: Vor 12.000 Jahren in Anatolien. Die ältesten Monumente der Menschheit. Stuttgart. Lloyd, Seton, Safar, Fuad and Braidwood, Robert J. 1944: Tell Hassuma. Excavations by the Iraq Government Directorate General of Antiquitties in 1943 and 1944. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 4, 255–284.

Karmanski, Sergej 1990: Donja Branjevina (Beiträge). Odžaci. Karmanski, Sergej 2005: Donja Branjevina: A Neolithic Settlement near Deronje in the Vojvodina (Serbia). Ed. Paolo Biagi. Trieste. Kisléghi Nagy, Gyula 1911: Az óbessenyĘi Ęstelep (The prehistoric settlement at ÓbessenyĘ). Archaeologiai ÉrtesítĘ 31, 147–164. Korek, József 1972: Katalog der ausgestellten Funde. In Idole. Prähistorische Keramiken aus Ungarn. Eds Friedrich Bachmayer, Elisabeth Ruttkay, Herbert Melichar and Ortwin Schulz. Wien, 31–44. Kovács, Katalin 2001: TiszaszĘlĘs–Aszópart. Az Alföldi Vonaldíszes Kerámia kultúrájának korai telepe (ElĘzetes jelentés) (TiszaszĘlĘs–Aszópart. Eine frühe Siedlung der Alföld-Linienbandkeramik). Tisicum 12, 79–89. Kovács, Katalin 2007: A tiszaszĘlĘs–aszóparti középsĘ neolitikus település legkorábbi idĘszakának vizsgálata a kronológiai és kulturális kapcsolatok tükrében (The earliest occupation period of the Middle Neolithic settlement at TiszaszĘlĘs–Aszópart in the light of its chronological and cultural connections). ėsrégészeti levelek/Prehistoric newsletter 8–9, 19–38. Kovács, Zsó¿a Eszter, Gál, Erika and Bartosiewicz, László 2010: Early Neolithic animal bones from Ibrány–NagyerdĘ. In Neolithization of the Carpathian Basin: Northernmost Distribution of the Starþevo/Körös Culture. Eds Janusz K. Kozáowski and Pál Raczky. Kraków–Budapest, 238–253. Kozáowski, Janusz K. and Nowak, Marek 2010: From Körös/ Criú to the early Eastern Linear Complex: multidirectional transitions in the north-eastern fringe of the Carpathian Basin. In Neolithization of the Carpathian Basin: Northernmost Distribution of the Starþevo/Körös Culture. Eds Janusz K. Kozáowski and Pál Raczky. Kraków– Budapest, 65–90. Kreiter, Attila 2010: Crafting difference: Early Neolithic (Körös culture) ceramic traditions in north-east Hungary. In Neolithization of the Carpathian Basin: northernmost distribution of the Starþevo/Körös culture. Eds Janusz K. Kozáowski and Pál Raczky. Kraków. 177–193. Kunchev, Kuncho 1983: Neolithic tools in Bulgaria. In Ancient Bulgaria: papers presented to the International Symposium on the Ancient History of Bulgaria, University of Nottingham 1981. Ed. Andrew G. Poulter. Nottingham, 135–153, Kurucz, Katalin 1989: A nyíri MezĘség neolitikuma (The Neolithic in the MezĘség region). Jósa András Múzeum Kiadványai 28. Nyíregyháza, Kutzián, Ida 1944: A Körös-kultúra. Dissertationes Pannonicae II. 23. Budapest. Kutzián, Ida 1947: The Körös culture. Dissertationes Pannonicae II. 23. Budapest. Lakó, Éva 1977: Piese de cult din aúezarea neolitică de la Zăuan (Jud Sălaj) (Items found in the neolithical settlement at Zăuan (Sălaj). Acta Musei Porolissensis 1, 41–47. Lakó, Éva 1978: Raport de cercetare arheologică efectuată în aúezarea neolitică de la Zăuan (jud. Sălaj) în 1977. Acta Musei Porolissensis 2, 11–31. Lazarovici, Gheorghe 1973: Tipologia úi cronolgia culturii Vinþa în Banat (Tipologie und Chronologie der VinþaKultur im Banat). Banatica 2, 1973, 25–55. 50

References

Monah, Dan and Dumitroaia, Gheorghe 2007: Recherches sur L’exploitation préhistorique du sel en Roumanie. In L’exploitation du sel à travers le temps. Eds Dan Monah, Gheorghe Dumitroaia, Olivier Weller and John Chapman. Collection Biblioteca Memoriae Antiquitatis. Piatra NeamĠ, 13–34. Nagy, Emese Gy. 1998: Az Alföldi Vonaldíszes kerámia kultúrájának kialakulása (Die Herausbildung der Alfölder Linearbandkeramik I–II). Debreceni Déri Múzeum Évkönyve, 53–150. Nagy, Emese Gy. 1999: KözépsĘ neolit idolok Hajdú-Bihar megyében (Mittelneolithische Idole aus dem Komitat Hajdú-Bihar). Debreceni Déri Múzeum Évkönyve, 31–47. Nandris, John 1972: Bos primigenius and the bone spoon. Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology, University of London 10, 63–83. Nica, Marin 1976: La culture de Dudeúti en Olténie. Dacia 20, 71–103. Nica, Marin 1977: Nouvelles données sur le Néolithique ancien d’Olténie. Dacia 21, 13–53, Nica, Marin 1981: Grӽdinile, o nouӽ aúezare a neoliticului timpuriu în sud-estul Olteniei. Arhivele Olteniei 1, 27–39. Nikolov, Vassil 1992: Rannoneolitno zhiliste ot Slatina (So¿a). Raskopki i prouþvanija 25. So¿a. Nikolov, Vassil 2005: Pervi svidetelstva za naj-ranoto solodobivanne v Evropa (First evidence for the earliest salt production in Europe). Arheologija 46, 109–117. Nikolov, Vassil, Grigorova, Kunka and Sirakova, Emilia 1992: Die Ausgrabungen in den frühneolithischen Siedlung von So¿a–Slatina, Bulgarien, in den Jahren 1985–1988. Acta praehistorica et archaeologica 24, 221–233. Özdogan, Mehmet 1989: Neolithic cultures of Northwestern Turkey – A general appraisal of the evidence and some considerations. In Neolithic of Southeastern Europe and its Near Eastern Connections. Ed. Sándor Bökönyi. Budapest, 201–215. Patay, Pál 1968: A fényeslitkei rézkori temetĘ (Das kupferzeitliche Gräberfeld von Fényeslitke). Nyíregyházi Jósa András Múzeum Évkönyve 11, 15–62, Paul, Iuliu 1995: Aspekte des Karpatisch-BalkanischDonauländischen Neolithikums (die Präcriú-Kultur). In Vorgeschichtliche Untersuchungem in Siebenbürgen. Ed. Iuliu Paul. Alba Iulia, 28–68. Păunescu, Alexandru 1978: Cercetările arheologice de la Cuina Turcului–Dubova (Jud. MehedinĠi) (Les fouilles archéologiques de Cuina Turcului–Dubova, Dep. MehedinĠi). Tibiscus 5, 11–56. PavlĤ, Ivan 1966: Early “Myths” relating to the Neolithic society. Archeologické Rozhledy 18, 700–717. Pavúk, Juraj 1994: Zur relativen Chronologie der älteren Linearkeramik. Nyíregyházi Jósa András Múzeum Évkönyve 36, 135–149. Pavúk, Juraj 2004: Early Linear Pottery Culture in Slovakia and the Neolithisation of Central Europe. In LBK Dialogues. Studies in the formation of the Linear Pottery Culture. Eds Alena Lukes and Marek Zvelebil. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1304. Oxford, 71–82. Pavúk, Juraj 2006: Die Neolithisierung des mitteleuropäischen Raumes: Beispiel der Ost-West Beziehungen, In Trade, Journeys, Inter- and Intracultural Communication in East

Makkay, János 1974: „Das frühe Neolithikum auf der Ozaki magula” und die Körös-Starþevo-Kultur. Acta Archaeologica Hungarica 26, 131–154. Makkay, János 1990: The Protovniþa problem – as seen from the northernmost frontier. In Vinþa and its World. Eds Dragoslav Srejoviü and Nikola Tasiü. Beograd, 113–122. Makkay, János 1990: Knochen-, Geweih- und Eberzahngegenstände der frühneolitischen Körös-Kultur. Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae, 21–58. Makkay, János 1992: Excavations at the Körös culture settlement of EndrĘd–ÖregszĘlĘk 119 in 1986–1989. In Cultural and landscape changes in South-East Hungary I. Ed. Sándor Bökönyi. Budapest, 121–193. Makkay, János 1993: Eine prachtvolle Frauen¿gur der Körös-Starþevo-Kultur. In Prähistorische Funde und Forschungen. Festschrif zum Gedanken an Professor Georgi I. Georgiev. Ed. Vassil Nikolov. So¿a, 73–78. Makkay, János 1996: Theories about the Origin, the Distribution and the End of the Körös Culture. In At the Fringes of Three Worlds. Ed. László Tálas. Szolnok, 35–53. Makkay, János 1999: I primi agricoltori dell’Europa sudorientale. Il Neolitico del Bacino dei Carpazi. In Settemila anni fa il primo pane. Ambienti e cultura delle società neolithiche. Eds Andrea Pessina and Giuseppe Muscio. Udine, 35–54. Makkay, János 2003: Méhteleki kutatások. Nyíregyháza. Makkay, János 2007: The excavations of the Early Neolithic sites of the Körös culture in the Körös valley, Hungary. Vol. I. Eds Elisabetta Starnini and Paolo Biagi. Trieste 2007. Marinkoviü, Snezana 2006: Starþevo culture in Central Banat. In From Starþevo to Vinþa culture. Current problems of the transition period. Ed. Bogdan Brukner. Zrenjanin, 63–80. Masson, Vadim M. 1971: Poselenie Dzheitun (Problema stanovlenija proizvodjashchej ekonomiki). Leningrad. Masson, Vadim M. 1978: Egy kĘkori település KözépÁzsiában: Dzsejtun. Budapest. Masson, Vadim M. and Sarianidi, Viktor I. 1972: Central Asia – Turkmenia before the Achaemenids. Southampton. Mellaart, James 1965a: Earliest Civilizations of the Near East. London. Mellaart, James 1965b: Çatal Hüyük, a Neolithic city in Anatolia. Proceedings of the British Academy 51, 201–213. Mellaart, James 1967: Çatal Hüyük: A Neolithic Town in Anatolia. London–Southampton 1967. Mellaart, James 1970: Excavations at Hacilar I-II. Edinburgh. Mellaart, James 1975: The Neolithic of the Near East. London. Mester, Zsolt and Rácz, Béla 2010:, The spread of the Körös Culture and the raw material sources in the northeastern part of the Carpathian Basin, a research project. In Neolithization of the Carpathian Basin: Northernmost Distribution of the Starþevo/Körös Culture. Eds Janusz K. Kozáowski and Pál Raczky. Krakoów–Budapest, 23–35. Milleker, Felix 1938: Vorgeschichte des Banats. Starinar III. 13, 102–165. Mogoúanu, Flores 1978: Mezoliticul de la Ostrovul Corbului, o nouă aúezare de tip Schela Cladovei (Le mésolithique d’Osrovul Corbului, un nouvel établissement de type Schela Cladovei). Studii úi Cercetări de Istorie Veche úi Arheologie 29, 335–351. 51

References

zum 75. Geburtstag. Eds Erzsébet Jerem and Pál Raczky. Budapest, 155–182. Raczky, Pál and Anders, Alexandra 2009: Settlement history of the Middle Neolithic in the Polgár micro-region (The development of the Alföld Linearband Pottery in the Upper Tisza Region, Hungary). In Interactions between different models of neolithisation north of the Central European agro-ecological barrier. Papers presented on the symposium organized by the EU project FEPRE. Prace Komisji Prehistorii Karpat PAU 5. Kraków, 31–50. Racduncheva, Anna 1976: Prehistoric art in Bulgaria from the 5th to the 2nd millennium BC. British Archaeological Reports International Series 13. Oxford. Roska, Márton 1941: A Torma Zsó¿a gyĦjtemény az Erdélyi Nemzeti Múzeum Érem- és Régiségtárában (Die Sammlung Zsó¿a von Torma in der Numismatisch-Archäologischen Abteilung der Siebenbürgischen Nationalmuseums). Kolozsvár. Sladiü, Miodrag 1986: Kula près de Mihajlovac – Une site préhistorique. In Djerdapske sveske III. Ed. Vladimir Kondiü. Beograd, 432–442, Smoor, Bert 1976: Bone tools. In Neolithic Macedonia. As reÀected by excavations at Anza, Southeast Yugoslavia. Ed. Marija Gimbutas. Los Angeles, 189–197. Spataro, Michela 2008: Early Neolithic pottery production in Romania: Gura Baciului and ùeuúa–La Cărarea Morii (Transylvania). In Living Well Together? Settlement and Materiality in the Neolithic of South-East and Central Europe. Eds Douglass W. Bailey, Alasdair Whittle and Daniela Hofman. Oxford, 91–100. Srejoviü, Dragoslav 1969: Lepenski Vir. Beograd. Srejoviü, Dragoslav 1981: Lepenski Vir. Regensburg. Srejoviü, Dragoslav and Baboviü, Ljubinka 1981: Lepenski Vir – Menschenbilder einer frühen europäischen Kultur. Köln. Srejoviü, Dragoslav and Letica, Zagorka 1978: Vlasac – A Mesolithic Settlement in the Iron Gates I–II. Beograd. Starnini, Elisabetta 1993: Typological and technological analyses of the Körös Culture chipped, polished and ground stone assemblages of Méhtelek–Nádas (North-eastern Hungary). Atti della societá per la preistoria e protoistoria della regione Friuli–Venezia Giulia 8, 29–96. Starnini, Elisabetta 1994: Typological and technological analysis of the Körös Culture stone assemblages of Méhtelek–Nádas and Tiszacsege (North-East Hungary). A preliminary report. A Nyíregyházi Jósa András Múzeum Évkönyve 36, 101–110. Starnini, Elisabetta 2000: Stone industries of the Early Neolithic cultures in Hungary and their relationships with the Mesolithic background. In Studi sul Paleolitico, Mesolitico e Neolitico del Bacino dell’Adriatico in Ricordo di Antonio M. Radmilli, Ed. Paolo Biagi. Trieste, 207–219. Tasiü, Nenad 2000: Salt Use in the Early and Middle Neolithic of the Balkan Peninsula. In Technology, Style and Society. Contributions to the Innovations between the Alps and the Black Sea in Prehistory. Ed. Lolita Nikolova. British Archaeological Reports International Series 854. Oxford, 35–40. Tasiü, Nenad 2006: Anzabegovo – Milutin Garašanin’s key for the Early Neolithic of the Central Balkans. In Hommage à Milutin Garašanin. Eds Nikola Tasiü and Cvetan Grozdanov. Belgrade, 159–170.

and West (up to 1250). Eds Jozef Márian Gálik and Tatiana Štefanoviþová. Bratislava, 11–39. Pavúk, Juraj and ýohadžiev, Michail 1984: Neolithische Tellsiedlung bei Gălăbnik in Westbulgarien. Slovenská Archeológia 32, 195–228. Popuúoi, Eugenia 1980: Sondajul arheologic de la Balú (jud. Iaúi) (Sondge archéologique à Balú, Dép. de Iaúi). Arheologia Moldovei 9, 7–17. Popuúoi, Eugenia 2005: Trestiana. Monogra¿e arheologică. Bărlad. Potushniak, Mikhail 1985: Neolit Zakarpatia: Kulturi Krish keramiki, i raspisnoj keramiki. In Arheologia Ukranskoj SSSR 1. Kiev, 139–150. Potushniak, Mikhail 2004: Data to the question of the Starþevo/Körös Culture dwellings in the Upper Tisza Region. Nyíregyházi Jósa András Múzeum Évkönyve 46, 53–69. Rácz, Béla 2009: Kárpátalja paleolit nyersanyag-felhasználási régióinak elsĘdleges nyersanyagai (Primary raw material source regions in Transcarpathia). In MȍMOS 6. ėskoros kutatók VI. összejövetelének konferenciakötete. Nyersanyagok és kereskedelem. Ed. Gábor Ilon. Szombathely, 321–326. Raczky, Pál 1976: A Körös kultúra leletei TiszajenĘn (Funde der Körös-Kultur in TiszajenĘ). Archaeologiai ÉrtesítĘ 103, 171–189. Raczky, Pál 1978: A Körös-kultúra ¿gurális ábrázolásai NagykörĦbĘl (Figurale Darstellungen der Körös-Kultur aus NagykörĦ). Szolnok Megyei Múzeumok Évkönyve, 7–17. Raczky, Pál 1979–1980: A Körös kultúra újabb ¿gurális ábrázolásai a Közép-Tisza-vidékrĘl és történeti összefüggéseik (New ¿gural representations of the Körös Culture from the Middle Tisza Region and their historical connections). Szolnok Megyei Múzeumok Évkönyve, 5–33. Raczky, Pál 1982: Szolnok megye a népek országútján a régészeti leletek tükrében. ÚjkĘkor (Neolitikum) (Szolnok county: crossroads of many races – the history of Szolnok county through archaeological ¿nds). In Szolnok megye a népek országútján a régészeti leletek tükrében. Állandó kiállítás vezetĘje. Ed. Pál Raczky. Szolnok, 8–23, 92–99. Raczky, Pál 1983: A korai neolitikumból a középsĘ neolitikumba való átmenet kérdései a Közép- és FelsĘTiszavidéken (Questions of transitions between the Early and Middle Neolithic in the Middle and Upper Tisza region). Archaeológiai ÉrtesítĘ 110, 161–194. Raczky, Pál 1986: Megjegyzések az „alföldi vonaldíszes kerámia” kialakulásának kérdéséhez (Notes on the problem of the appearence of the Alföld Linear Pottery). In Régészeti Tanulmányok Kelet-Magyarországról. Eds József Farkas and Péter Németh. Folklór és Etnográ¿a 24. Debrecen, 45–59. Raczky, Pál 1988: A Tiszavidék kulturális és kronológiai kapcsolatai a Balkánnal és az Égeikummal a neolitikum, rézkor idĘszakában. Újabb kutatási eredmények és problémák (The cultural and chronological connections of the Tisza region with the Balkans and the Aegean during the Neolithic and the Copper Age). Szolnok. Raczky, Pál and Anders, Alexandra 2003: The internal relations of the Alföld Linear Pottery Culture in Hungary and the characteristics of human representation. In Morgenrot der Kulturen. Frühe Etappen der Menschheitsgeschichte in Mittel- und Südosteuropa. Festschrift für Nándor Kalicz 52

References

Theocharis, Demetrios R. 1967: I Avgi tis Thessalikis Proistorias (The Dawn of Thessalian Prehistory). Volos. Theocharis, Demetrios R. 1973: Neolithic Greece. Athens. Todorova, Henrieta, ýochadžiev, Michail and Vaisow, Ivan 1981: Katalog. In Jungsteinzeit in Bulgarien: Neolithikum und Äneolithikum. Ausstellungskatalog. Ed. Ralf Busch. Wunstorf. Todorova, Henrieta and Vajsov, Ivan 1993: Novokamennata epoha v Balgaria (The Neolithic in Bulgaria). So¿a. Tompa, Ferenc, 1937: 25 Jahre Urgeschichtsforschung in Ungarn 1912–1936. Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 24–25, 27–127. Tripkoviü, Boban 2003–2004: Obsidian deposits in the Central Balkans? Tested against archaeological evidence. Starinar 53–54, 163–177. Trogmayer, Ottó 2003: Régi adósságaim I. Röszke–Lúdvár. ėsrégészeti levelek / Prehistoric newsletter 5, 8–20. Trogmayer, Ottó 2004: Régi adósságaim II. Gyálarét–Szilágyimajor. ėsrégészeti levelek / Prehistoric newsletter 6, 13–26. Trogmayer, Otto, Koncz, Margit and Paluch, Tibor 2005: Hétezer éves kerámiamĦvészet. “Az újkĘkor és a rézkor mĦvészete” címĦ kiállítás tárgyainak katalógusa – Seven thousand years old ceramic art. Catalogue of the permanent exhibition “Art of the Neolithic and the Copper Age” in HódmezĘvásárhely. HódmezĘvásárhely. Ursulescu, Nicolae 1984: EvoluĠia culturii Starþevo-Criú pe teritoriul Moldovei (Contributions à la connaissance de l’évolution et de position chronologique de la civilisation Starþevo-Criú sur le territore de la Moldavie). Suceava.

Vasiü, Miloje M. 1932–1936: Praistorijska Vinþa I–IV. Beograd. Vetniü, Savo 1990: The Earliest Settlements of the Vinþa culture (Proto-Vinþa) in the Morava Valley. In Vinþa and its World. Eds Dragoslav Srejoviü and Nikola Tasiü. Beograd, 91–97. Virag, Cristian 2008: Materiale ceramice neolitice de la Cӽlineúti–Dămbul S¿ntei Marii. Satumare 25, 35–69. Vlassa, Nicoale 1972: Eine frühneolithische Kultur mit bemalter Keramik der Vor-Starþevo-Körös-Zeit in ClujGura Baciului, Siebenbürgen. Praehistorische Zeitschrift 47, 174–197. Weller, Olivier and Dumitroaia, Gheorghe 2005: The earliest salt production in the world: an early Neolithic exploitation in Poiana Slatinei–Lunca, Romania. Antiquity 79, 306. Also available online at http://www.antiquity.ac.uk/ projgall/weller306 Weller, Olivier, Dumitroaia, Gheorghe, Monah, Dan and Nuninger, Laure 2007: L’exploitation des sources salées en Moldavie: un exemple de ressource structurante du territoire depuis le Neolithique. In. L’exploitation du sel à travers le temps. Actes du colloque international, Piatra NeamĠ, Roumanie, octobre 2004, Musée de Piatra NeamĠ. Eds Dan Monah, Gheorghe Dumitroaia, Olivier Weller and John Chapman. Bibliotheca Memoriae Antiquitatis XVIII. Piatra NeamĠ, 99–113. Zaharia, Eugenia 1962: Considérations sur la civilisation de Criú à la lumière des sondages de LeĠ. Dacia 6, 5–51.

53

Kalicz_Book.indb 54

2011.12.13. 11:40:03

Fig. 1. Sites of the Méhtelek group in the Carpathian Basin (and the Körös culture site at Dudeúti Veche/ÓbesenyĘ yielding oblong slab ¿gurines) 1. Méhtelek–Nádas, 2. Nagyecsed–Péterzug, 3. Tiszabezdéd–Servápa, 4. Fényeslitke, 5. Homorodul de Sus/FelsĘhomoród, 6. Zăuan/Szilágyzovány, 7. PorĠ “Corău”, 8. Dyakovo/Gyakovo, 9. Zastavne–Mala hora/Zapszony–Kishegy, 10. Rivne/Szernye–KismezĘ, 11. Berehovo/Beregszász–Kerekhegy, I2. Ibrány–NagyerdĘ, 13. Szabolcs–Földvár 14. Dudeúti Veche/ÓbesenyĘ

55

Fig. 2. Méhtelek. 1. The site and its environment, 2. the excavated area and its features 56

Fig. 3. Méhtelek. 1. Pit 1–3Į, from the south, 2. section of Pit 4–5/Į, from the west, 3. Pit III, from the south, 4. the site with Pit 1–3/Į 57

3

2

4

1

7 6 5

8

10 9

13 12

11

Fig. 4. Méhtelek. 1–10, 12. Slab ¿gurines and related ¿gurines from Pit 1–3/Į, 11, 13. slab ¿gurines from Pit I and Pit 6/Į 58

3 1

2

4

6 5

7

10 8

11

9

12

13

Fig. 5. Méhtelek. Intact and fragmentary slab ¿gurines from Pit 4–5/Į 59

14

3 1

2 4

5

6

7

8

9 10

11

12 13 Fig. 6. Méhtelek. Slab ¿gurines from various features

60

3

2

5

1

4

7 6

8

10 9

14

11

12

13

Fig. 7. Méhtelek. Fragments of steatopygous ¿gurines from Pit 1–3/Į 61

Fig. 8. Méhtelek. Large steatopygous ¿gurine from Pit 4–5/Į

62

2

1

3

4

7

8 5

6 9

11

10

Fig. 9. Méhtelek. Fragments of steatopygous ¿gurines from Pit 4–5/Į 63

12

2

3

4

1

7

6

9

8 5

12 11

10

Fig. 10. Méhtelek. Fragments of steatopygous ¿gurines. 1–4, 7. Pit 4–5/Į, 5. Pit 6/Į, 6, 11–12. Pit 7/Į, 10. Pit 7/ȕ, 8–9. Pit III 64

1

4

5

7

6

8

3 2

11

10

9

13

14

15 16

12

19

18

20 21

17

23

22

27

25

24

28

32

33

34

35

36 40

38

31

30

29

26

41

37 42

39

Fig. 11. Méhtelek type and related ¿gurines from the Carpathian Basin and the Balkans 1–2. Zastavne–Mala Hora/Zapszony–Kishegy (Ukraine), 3. Zăuan/Szilágyzovány (Romania), 4. PorĠ “Corău” (Romania), 5. Gura Baciului/Bácsitorok (Romania), 6. Szarvas 23 (Hungary), 7a-b. Kunszentmárton (Hungary). 8. Szentes (Hungary), 9. Tiszaug (Hungary), 10. Dévaványa (Hungary), 11. Röszke–Lúdvár (Hungary), 12. Tiszasziget/Ószentiván (Hungary), 13–16. Dudeúti Veche/ÓbesenyĘ (Romania), 17. Freidorf (Romania), 18. Gornea (Romania), 19–20. Cârcea (Romania), 21. Grădinile (Romania), 22–23. Trestiana (Romania), 24. Balú (Romania), 25–26. Donja Branjevina/Mostonga (Serbia), 27. Vinkovci (Croatia), 28. Slatina (Bulgaria), 29–30. Rakitovo (Bulgaria), 31. Karanovo II (Bulgaria), 32–35. Gălăbnik (Bulgaria), 36. Pernik (Bulgaria), 37. Azmaska Mogila (Bulgaria), 38. Mursalevo (Bulgaria), 39–40. Boretz (Bulgaria), 41–42. Jasa Tepe (Bulgaria) 65

Fig. 12. Distribution of Méhtelek type and related ¿gurines in the Carpathian Basin and the Balkans 1–2. Zastavne–Mala hora/Zápszony–Kishegy (Ukraine), 3. Zăuan/Szilágyzovány (Romania), 4. PorĠ “Corău” (Romania), 5. Gura Baciului/Bácsitorok (Romania), 6. Szarvas 23 (Hungary), 7a-b. Kunszentmárton (Hungary), 8. Szentes (Hungary), 9. Tiszaug (Hungary), 10. Dévaványa–Réhelyi gát (Hungary), 11. Röszke–Lúdvár (Hungary), 12. Tiszasziget/Ószentiván (Hungary), 13. Dudeúti Veche/ÓbesenyĘ (Romania), 14. Freidorf (Romania) 15. Ocna Sibiului/Vízakna (Romania), 16. Gornea (Romania), 17. Cârcea (Romania) 18. Grădinile (Romania), 19. Trestiana (Romania), 20. Balú (Romania), 21. Donja Branjevina/Mostonga (Serbia), 22. Vinkovci (Croatia), 23. Slatina (Bulgaria), 24. Rakitovo (Bulgaria), 25. Karanovo II (Bulgaria), 26. Gălăbnik (Bulgaria), 27. Pernik (Bulgaria), 28. Mursalevo (Bulgaria), 29. Boretz (Bulgaria), 30. Azmaska Mogila (Bulgaria), 31. Burgas area (Bulgaria), 32. Kazanlak (Bulgaria), 33. Plovdiv–Jasa Tepe (Bulgaria) 66

1a

1b

2

2b

1c

3 Fig. 13. Méhtelek. Anthropomorphic vessels. 1, 3. Pit 4–5/Į, 2. Pit III

67

1a

2

1b

3

4

Fig. 14. Méhtelek. Fragments of relief decorated anthropomorphic vessels

68

3

4

5

2

1

6

12 7

8 14 11

9 15

10 13

16

17

Fig. 15. Méhtelek. Miscellaneous small artefacts. 1. Pit III, 2. Pit 1–3/Į, 3–7. Pit 1–3/Į and Pit III, 8–11, 17, Pit 4–5/Į, 12–16. from various pits 69

1 2

3

4

15 5

6

16 8 9

7

12 11 10

13 14 Fig. 16. Méhtelek. 1–8, 10–14. Vessel fragments with applied and painted decoration, 9. fragment of a small bowl, 15. antler sicke haft, 16. bone spoon 70

3

2 1 5

4

Fig. 17. Méhtelek. Antler artefacts. 1–4. Pit III, 5. Pit 4–5/ Į

71

2 1

3

4

6 5

Fig. 18. Méhtelek. Bone, boar tusk and antler artefacts. 1–3, 5–6. Pit 4–5/Į, 4. Pit III

72

1

3

2 4 Fig. 19. Méhtelek. 1. Plan of Pit 1–3/Į, 2–4. vessels from the pit 73

1

2

4

3

5

6

7

9

8

11

10

12

13

14

Fig. 20. Méhtelek. Conical, biconical and steep-sided bowls and pots from Pit 1–3/Į 74

1

2

4

3

5

6

9

8

7

12

10 11

13

14 15

16 17 Fig. 21. Méhtelek. Conical bowls from Pit 1–3/Į 75

18

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

Fig. 22. Méhtelek. Fragments of wide-shouldered jars from Pit 1–3/Į 76

1

3

2

4

7

5

6

9

8

10

12

11

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Fig 23. Méhtelek. Fragments of wide-shouldered and high-necked jars from Pit 1–3/Į 77

2

1

3

5

4

9

8

7

6

12

11

10

15 14

16

17

13

18

21

22

19

23

20 Fig. 24. Méhtelek. Body fragments with knobs, lugs and handles from larger vessels from Pit 1–3/Į 78

1

2

3

4

6

7

5

8 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

Fig. 25. Méhtelek. 1–9. Body fragments with impressed knobs, 10–17. fragments of footed vessels, all from Pit 1–3/Į 79

3

1

4

2

6

7

5

10

8

11

9

12

14

15

13

Fig. 26. Méhtelek. Fragments of vessels with pronounced base and foot-ring from Pit 1–3/Į

80

2

5

7

6

8

11

16

15

13

19

18

17

21

20

9

12

10

14

4

3

1

22 23

24

26

25

27

28 29

31 30

Fig. 27. Méhtelek. Rim and body fragments with impressed decoration from Pit 1–3/Į 81

32

Fig. 28. Méhtelek. Plan and section of Pit 4–5/Į

82

1 2

4 3

5

7

6

Fig. 29. Méhtelek. Vessels from Pit 4–5/Į 83

2

4

3

1

6

5

7

9

8

10

11 12

14

13

Fig. 30. Méhtelek. Conical and biconical bowls, and vessels with indrawn rim and steep sides from Pit 4–5/Į

84

2 1

4 3

5

6 7

8

9

10

Fig. 31. Méhtelek. Fragments of conical bowls from Pit 4–5/Į 85

3

2 1

6

5

4

9

7

11

10

8

13

14

12

17

15

16

18

20 19

21

22

24

Fig. 32. Méhtelek. Fragments of biconical bowls and bowls with indrawn rim from Pit 4–5/Į

86

23

24

3

2

1

6

5

4

8

7

10

9

11

14

13 12

15

17

16

18 19

21

20

Fig. 33. Méhtelek. Rim and body fragments from pots with rounded or wide shoulder from Pit 4–5/Į 87

1

2

3

4

7

5

8

9

6

11

12

13

10

15 14

17

16 19

18

20

21

22

23

Fig. 34. Méhtelek. Fragments of jars with cylindrical neck from Pit 4–5/Į

88

8

7

6

4

3

2

1

10

9

11

15

14 12

5

16

13

18

17

22

23

19

20

24

25

21

26

28

27

29

31

30

32

Fig. 35. Méhtelek. 1–13. Body fragments with knobs, 14–16. body fragments with impressed knob, 17–21. vessel handles, 22–32. base fragments of vessels set on feet, all from Pit 4–5/Į 89

2

3

4

1

7

6 5 8 9

12

13

11

10

15

14

16

17

19 20 18

21

Fig. 36. Méhtelek. 1–9. Base fragment from vessels with foot-ring or low pedestal, 10–22. base fragments of vessels with feet, all from Pit 4–5/Į 90

2

1

3

6

5

4

7

8

9

10

11

13

12

14

15

17

16 18 Fig. 37. Méhtelek. Rim and body fragments with impressed decoration from Pit 4–5/Į

91

2

3

4

1

6

5

7

10

9

8

11

12 13

15

14

17 18

16

20

19

Fig. 38. Méhtelek. Rim and body fragments with impressed decoration from Pit 4–5/Į 92

1

2

5

6

3

7

9

8

12

4

10

13

14

11

16

17

15

18

20

19

21 22

25

24

26

23

Fig. 39. Méhtelek. Rim and body fragments with impressed decoration from Pit 4–5/Į 93

1

2

3

4

Fig. 40. Méhtelek. Plan of Pits 6/Į and 6/ȕ, 2–4. four-footed bowl, pot and Àask from Pits 6/Į and 6/ȕ

94

1

2

3

4

5 6

8

7 9

10

Fig. 41. Méhtelek. Fragments of jars, bowls and vessel handles from Pits 6/Į and 6/ȕ 95

1

3

2

5

4

7

6

Fig. 42. Méhtelek. 1. Plan of Pit 7/Į, 2–7. fragments of jars and steep-sided vessels from Pit 7/Į

96

1

3 2

4

5

6

10 8

11

9

7

12

13

15 14

16

Fig. 43. Méhtelek. 1–6, Fragments of jars, bowls and vessels with foot-ring or pedestal, 7–16. rim and body fragments with impressed decoration, all from Pit 7/Į

97

Fig. 44. Méhtelek. Plan of Pits II and III

98

1

2

3

4

6

5

7

9 8

10 11

Fig. 45. Méhtelek. 1–7. Miniature vessels and bowl set on four feet, 8–11. steep-walled bowls and jars, all from Pit III 99

1

2

4

3

6 5

7 8

9

10

11 12

14

13

15

16

Fig. 46. Méhtelek. 1–12. Plain and decorated rim fragments from bowls and jars, 13–18. fragments of vessels with pronounced base and foot-ring, all from Pit III 100

1

2

3

5

4

6

8 7

10

9

12

11

13

Fig. 47. Méhtelek. Rim and base fragments with impressed decoration from Pit III 101

14

1

2 3

4

6 5

8

7

9

10

Fig. 48. Méhtelek. Rim and base fragments with impressed decoration from Pit III

102

1

2

3

6

5

7

9

8

12

11

10

13

4

14 15

Fig. 49. Méhtelek. Restored vessels

103

1 2

3

5

4

6

8

7 Fig. 50. Méhtelek. Restored vessels

104

2 1 3

5

4

8 7

10 Fig. 51. Méhtelek. Restored vessels from Pit 4–5/α 105

6

9

1

2

3

5

4

6 10

7 9

8

11

12

Fig. 52. Méhtelek. Vessels with impressed decoration typical for the Méhtelek group 106

13

Fig. 53. Méhtelek. Bone and antler artefacts

107

Fig. 54. Méhtelek. Chipped stone tools and unworked raw material 108

2

3

1

4

6 5

9

8

7 10

Fig. 55. Méhtelek. Unworked raw material, polished quern stones and hammer stones from Pit 4–5/Į

109

3

1

2 4

6

5

7

8

10

9

11

14 12

13

15

16

56. Nagyecsed– Péterzúg. Surface ¿nds

110

17

2 1 3

6

4

5

57. Méhtelek type ¿gurine and vessels from Dyakovo/Gyakovo (Ukraine)

111

Kalicz_Book.indb 112

2011.12.13. 11:40:28

Appendix Petrographic analysis of Körös ceramics from Méhtelek–Nádas Attila Kreiter* – György Szakmány**

Introduction This paper discusses the ceramic technological procedures used by the potters of the Körös settlement at Méhtelek– Nádas in north-eastern Hungary. By means of ceramic petrographic analysis, several vessel types and ¿gurines were examined and compared in order to assess possible similarities and differences in their manufacturing technology and raw materials. The ceramic technological results are compared with the data from previous studies on Neolithic pottery in general, and with Early Neolithic pottery traditions in particular. Material and methods An initial study of the ceramic assemblage from the site was carried out on a macroscopic level. Sample selection was based on the distinguishing criteria of vessel type, vessel shape, observable vessel-building techniques, surface treatment, colour, decoration, ¿ring conditions and fabric. Groups were distinguished according to fabric; the main criteria for selecting samples for the petrographic analysis were to include the widest possible variability observed within each fabric group. Following the macroscopic examination of many hundreds of sherds, thirty-eight ceramic samples and ¿ve ¿gurines were selected for petrographic analysis. Geological background The Great Hungarian Plain is the largest basin ¿lled with thick Neogene sediments in Hungary. The geological development of the Pannonian Basin began in the Early and Middle Miocene and was contemporary with the emersion of the Inner Carpathian Volcanic Belt. The volcanic action (partially affecting the territory of modern Ukraine, as well as Slovakia, Hungary and the Avas-Gutin Mountains of Romania) occurred at the same time as the active subsidence of the basin and the deposition of shallow marine-lacustrine sediments.1 The Pannonian Lake was ¿lled by the River Danube, the River Tisza, the River Bodrog and their tributaries. The BeregSzatmár Plain in the Upper Tisza region is part of an extensive Pleistocene alluvial fan built by the rivers arriving from the North-Eastern Carpathians and Transylvania.2 After leaving Hungarian National Museum National Heritage Protection Centre Laboratory for Conservation and Applied Research, H-1113, Budapest, Daróci u. 3, E-mail: [email protected] ** Department of Petrology and Geochemistry, Eötvös Loránd University, H-1117 Budapest, Pázmány Péter sétány 1/C, Hungary, [email protected] 1 Karátson–Szakács 1997. 2 Sümeghy 1944; Borsy 1954; Somogyi 1961; Urbancsek 1965; Borsy 1969; Lóki 1997. *

their source areas, the River Tisza and its subsidiary rivers Àow through the Crystalline Massif, the Máramaros Basin and the Neogene volcanic range of the Avas-Gutin Mountains.3 Méhtelek is located in the Szatmár Plain in the Upper Tisza region. The region’s surface was formed in the Holocene by the deposits of shifting river-beds such as the Tisza, Szamos and Túr rivers (Fig. 1. 1). The early Holocene alluvial deposits of the Tisza are made up of silty clay (fQh1ala, fQh2ala), clay (fQh2a) and silty sand (fQh2alh).4 The area is covered with 1–12 metres thick Holocene Àuviatile deposits.5 Since Méhtelek is located at roughly the same distance from the Tisza and Szamos rivers, the raw materials could have been obtained from the area along both large rivers. The area around the site is currently covered with Holocene clayey deposits that were probably deposited after the Neolithic. For this reason, the original surface of the Neolithic is not known. The non-plastic inclusions in the ceramics and the ¿gurines such as varied intermediate volcanic rocks and possibly their alterations (grains with re-crystallised and felsitic texture) may perhaps originate from the Nagybánya Volcanic Belt. Results of the petrographic analysis Thin section analysis was used to examine the similarities and differences between the raw materials, fabric preparation and tempering practices. During the petrographic analyses, the inclusion density, size categories, inclusion sorting and roundness of the components were determined on the basis of a slightly modi¿ed version of the guidelines set down by the Prehistoric Ceramic Research Group.6 The following categories were employed: inclusion frequency: rare (1–2%), sparse (3–10%), moderate (10–20%), common (20–30%), very common (30–40%) and abundant (40–50%); size classi¿cation: very ¿ne (< 0.1 mm), ¿ne (0.1–0.25 mm), medium (0.25–1 mm), coarse (1–3 mm) and very coarse (> 3 mm); inclusion sorting: poorly-sorted, moderatelysorted, well-sorted, and very well-sorted; roundness classes: angular, subangular, subrounded, rounded and well-rounded. Thirty-eight ceramic samples and ¿ve ¿gurines were examined petrographically. Four fabric groups could be distinguished. Fabric I (Fig. 1. 1–5) is represented by three samples (Nos 1, 3 and 6). The main characteristic of this group is that the raw material of the sherds is whitish. The amount of non-plastic inclusions is moderate (15–20%). The dominant size of non-plastic inclusions is very ¿ne and ¿ne (0.05–0.1 mm) and made up mainly of mono- and

113

Somogyi 1961; Somogyi 1997. Gyalog 2005; Kuti 2005. 5 Marosi–Somogyi 1990. 6 PCRG 1997. 3

4

Petrographic analysis of Körös ceramics from Méhtelek–Nádas

polycrystalline quartz, felsitic (dense, ¿ne-grained, the grains appear as phenocrysts, probably feldspar) volcanic fragments and volcanic glass. The fabric is hiatal, the coarse grains are quartz with a different origin: grains with resorbed edges indicate a volcanic origin (partial remelting of a mineral by magma, resulting from changes in temperature, pressure or magma composition), while more rounded quartz grains with cracks on their surface indicate a metamorphic origin. The hiatal fabric suggests that vessels were tempered with sand, which included medium to coarse grains (0.25–3 mm) of different origin. The vessels also show chaff tempering. A possible mixing of raw materials could be observed in Sample 6 (Fig. 1. 5). Fabric II could be divided into several subgroups. Fabric IIa (Figs 2–3) was identi¿ed in nine samples (Nos 2, 5, 12, 23–24, 26, 28–29 and 31). The distinguishing characteristic of this group is that the non-plastic inclusions are very ¿ne to very coarse (0.02–4.6 mm), even though the dominant grain size distribution is very ¿ne (0.02–0.06 mm). The amount of non-plastic inclusions is between moderate to common (10–25%). In these samples, similarly to the previous group, resorbed quartz grains and volcanic glass fragments are also present. Silici¿ed and re-crystallized volcanic glass fragments also appear. The hiatal fabric suggests that the vessels were tempered with coarse sand and also with chaff. It can be distinguished from the previous group by the raw material of the sherds: Fabric I is whitish, differing from the sherds of Fabric II. In the latter, the inclusions are also coarser. One of the ¿gurines (No. 2) is similar to the ceramics of Fabric IIa in terms of non-plastic inclusions (Fig. 4. 1–6). Silici¿ed and recrystallized volcanic glass fragments and sparse amounts of chaff tempering could be identi¿ed in the ¿gurine. The size of non-plastic inclusions is also similar to that of the ceramics. Eight samples (Nos 27, 32–38) were assigned to Fabric IIb (Fig. 5, Fig. 6. 1–4). The samples also show medium and coarse grains. The dominant size distribution varies between 0.04–0.08 mm, although sparse amounts of medium (0.25– 1 mm) and coarse (1–3 mm) grains are also present, the dominant size being 0.5–1.5 mm, the maximum being 3 mm. Similarly to Fabric IIa, muscovite and re-crystallised volcanic fragments appear in addition to monocrystalline quartz and polycrystalline quartz in these samples. The difference is that Fabric IIb also has aleuritic fragments comprised of different sizes of quartz grains (0.05–0.1 mm and 0.1–0.45 mm) and very ¿ne to medium-grained sandstone fragments also appear. The hiatal fabric indicates that apart from chaff, medium to coarse sand was also used for tempering, although the sand temper is different from what was observed in Fabric IIa. One sample (No. 30) was assigned to Fabric IIc (Fig. 6. 5–6). This sample resembles the previous two fabrics in terms of the types and size ranges of the non-plastic inclusions, although in this sample muscovite Àakes appear in different size ranges from very ¿ne to coarse, which are not present in the other fabrics. Coarse polycrystalline grains composed of individual quartz grains with undulated extinction and foliated quartz grains are also present. The distinguishing characteristic of this group is that it has more clasts with metamorphic origin. The fabric is hiatal, indicating that medium to coarse-grained sand was used for tempering alongside chaff. Again, the sand temper is different from what was observed in Fabrics IIa and IIb.

The similar non-plastic inclusions in the subgroups indicate that their raw materials were similar, although the presence of sandstone fragments in Fabric IIb and increased metamorphic clasts in Fabric IIc may imply that the raw materials came from different parts of the same river deposit. Fabric III (Figs 7–9) is represented by fourteen samples (Nos 8–9, 11, 13–22 and 25). The distinguishing feature of this fabric is that the grain size distribution mainly falls into the very ¿ne and ¿ne (0.03–0.14 mm) size categories. The amount of non-plastic inclusions is moderate to common (15–25%). The serial fabric indicates that no sand tempering was employed. It would appear that the raw materials of the vessels were naturally used and only chaff temper was added. Samples 8 and 19 also show argillaceous fragments, but they are probably naturally present in the raw material. The fabrics of Figurines 1, 3, 4 and 5 (Fig. 10. 1–6) are very similar to the vessels in this subgroup, although the amount of chaff tempering is lower in the ¿gurines and its size is also smaller. It must be noted that the amount of very ¿ne non-plastic inclusions in the ¿gurines shows variability. The amount of very ¿ne non-plastic inclusions in Figurines 1, 3 and 5 is similar to the amount in the pottery. Figurine 4 shows less very ¿ne inclusions. Three samples (Nos 4, 7 and 10) were assigned to Fabric IV (Fig. 11). The characteristic of this group is that the dominant grain size is very ¿ne (0,02–0,09 mm) and very similar to Fabric III, but rare amounts of medium to coarse inclusions (0.3–3.2 mm) could also be identi¿ed. The amount of nonplastic inclusions is moderate (15–20%). It must be noted that the types of medium and coarse grains are similar to the previous groups (re-crystallized volcanic glass, resorbed quartz), although their amount is rare and it is possible that they were naturally present in the raw material. Nevertheless, the elongated pores indicate that chaff was used for tempering. Nine ceramic samples (Nos 1–4, 7, 12, 18, 21 and 23) were submitted to X-ray diffraction analysis in order to assess ¿ring temperatures and to determine the mineral phases of the whitish ceramics of Fabric I. The XRD analysis indicated that the ¿ring temperature of the vessels was higher than 570 ºC, but lower than 870 ºC. The raw material of the whitish sherds is most probably kaolinic clay.7 Potential raw material sources were the deposits of kaolinic clay around Tiszabercel (brick factory) and there are also kaoline sources around Sárospatak and Mád (Hegyalja, Zemplén Mountains). The kaolinic clay from Hegyalja was a preferred raw material for producing white pipes in the 19th century.8 Even though different fabric groups and subgroups could be distinguished at Méhtelek, it must be emphasised that the ceramic raw materials were probably collected in the same area, relatively close to each other, possibly from similar deposits of the same river. Since the site is situated at approximately the same distance from the Tisza and Szamos rivers, the raw materials could originate from the deposits of both large rivers. Holocene clayey deposits probably deposited after the Neolithic can be currently found in the broader area of the Méhtelek site and thus the original surface of the Neolithic is not known. The non-plastic inclusions in the ceramics may originate from the Nagybánya Volcanic Belt that were deposited around Méhtelek. The varied igneous and 7 8

114

Mária Tóth, pers. comm. Nyárádi 1959, 120.

Petrographic analysis of Körös ceramics from Méhtelek–Nádas

neutral rocks and their alterations (re-crystallised, felsitic) comprise the ceramic raw materials. Comparisons and discussion The petrographic analysis revealed that the ceramics and ¿gurines could have been made from similar raw materials. The composition of Figurine 2 is very similar to the ceramics of Fabric IIa, characterised by the appearance of medium to coarse grains, including re-crystallized and silici¿ed volcanic glass fragments which distinguish this fabric from the others. It must be noted that resorbed quartz grains appear in Fabric I as well as in Fabric IIa. This implies that similar raw materials were used for tempering the vessels (even when they were made from different raw materials) and the ¿gurine. Figurines 1, 3, 4 and 5 share similarities with the vessels of Fabric III, although the amount of very ¿ne non-plastic inclusions shows variability in the ¿gurines and the size of chaff is also ¿ner. These differences suggest that the raw materials used for crafting ¿gurines were prepared differently or that materials from different sources were used to make these unusual artefacts. However, the raw material used for the ¿gurines was carefully prepared as shown by their dense and compact fabric. It must be noted that pottery of Fabric III appears to have been similarly carefully prepared by the potters, perhaps by levigation, since the fabrics are dense and the grain size distribution is even in the majority of the ceramics in this group. It is also possible that the potters deliberately selected very ¿ne-grained raw materials for potting. The macroscopic examination of Figurines 4 and 5 revealed that their exterior colour differs markedly from the colour of their cores. It has often been suggested that Neolithic ¿gurines were crafted by ¿rst making the ¿gurine’s core onto which an outer layer of clay was then applied to form the body.9 However, the thin sections of Figurines 4 and 5 only indicate colour differences between the inner and outer layers, but no differences could be identi¿ed between the composition of the two layers and the raw material is homogenous at the meeting point of the two assumed layers (Fig. 10. 4–5), without any indication that the outer layer was applied separately to the core. The colour differences between the exterior and interior of the ¿gurines can be explained by ¿ring circumstances and not by the application of a second layer to the core: the core of the ¿gurines suggests ¿ring in a reduced atmosphere, while the exterior became lighter owing to ¿ring in an oxidising atmosphere when the ¿re was dampened. Figurine 2 was sculpted using a different procedure. The ¿gurine’s core was made ¿rst and then another layer of clay was applied to form the body. The composition of the core and the outer layer is very similar, but the core contains coarser grains. A closer examination of the ceramics revealed that if the potters did not carefully blend together the various components, a very thin “gap” remained between the attached parts which can be seen under a polarizing microscope. A “gap” of this type can clearly be noted on Figurine 2 (Fig. 4. 5), con¿rming that it had indeed been made from two layers. This indicates that ¿gurines were made using two different techniques, although from similar raw materials as used for vessels, and that the clay used for ¿gurines was also tempered with chaff and, as shown by Figurine 2, also 9

with sand. While the assessment of the relationship between ceramic technology and ¿gurine production certainly requires further studies, our ¿ndings show that technology is a system which cannot be divided into profane (vessels) and sacred (¿gurines) artefacts because the material and non-material aspects have to be considered together in the examination of material culture production.10 In order to better understand the ceramic petrographic results from Méhtelek, the following section offers an overview of the ceramic technological evidence from other Starþevo– Criú and Körös sites. The ceramic technological comparison allows us to examine Early Neolithic ceramic traditions in a broader archaeological context. Technological studies of ceramic samples from other Early Neolithic settlements such as the Körös settlements at Ibrány–NagyerdĘ dĦlĘ, Nagykörü– Gyömölcsös, Szakmár–Kisülés and the Starþevo settlement at Gellénháza–Városrét suggest that there are extensive similarities between Körös ceramic technologies.11 Moreover, the available literature also suggests major similarities between the ceramic technologies used by the potters of the Starþevo–Criú and Körös cultures at EndrĘd–ÖregszĘlĘk 119, EndrĘd–Szujókereszt 39, EndrĘd–Kápolnahalom 6, Szarvas– Szappanos 8, Szarvas–Egyházföld 23, TiszaszĘlĘs–Domaháza and Vörs–Máriaasszonysziget.12 These sites show the almost exclusive use of chaff temper for ceramic production. Apart from the similarities between the Starþevo–Criú and Körös ceramic technologies, petrographic analyses of pottery from other Early Neolithic sites representing different cultural groups, such as Szentgyörgyvölgy–Pityerdomb (Early Transdanubian Linear Pottery [TLP]) and Füzesabony– Gubakút (Alföld Linear Pottery [ALP]), Szatmár group), also indicate that chaff was the dominant tempering agent in ceramic production.13 In the light of the available data, Early Neolithic ceramic traditions preferred very ¿ne or ¿ne-grained, chaff-tempered raw materials found in a wide geographical area. In this respect, Méhtelek differs signi¿cantly from other Körös sites in that the ceramics tend to be medium to coarse-grained (Fabrics I, II, IV), while very ¿ne-grained ceramics (Fabric III) are less characteristic. Another marked difference between the above mentioned Körös sites which have been analysed by the authors (Ibrány–NagyerdĘ dĦlĘ, Nagykörü–Gyümölcsös, Szakmár–Kisülés, Méhtelek–Nádas) is that in spite of the availability of very ¿ne-grained raw materials at each site, potters at Méhtelek (Fabrics I, II, IV) and to some extent also at Ibrány (Fabric II) and Nagykörü (Fabric III) preferred more sandy fabrics. The Méhtelek potters appear to have had a very clear preference for coarser fabrics.14 It has to be conceded that there could have been differences between the ceramic technologies employed at different sites as a result of local production from local raw materials at each site. Thus, local geology does affect choices to some extent because people used raw materials from a relatively restricted geographical area around their settlement. However, at Méhtelek, the characteristic differences can be attributed to the selective choice of raw materials. This is further con¿rmed by the

Kalicz 2007, 15.

115

Pfaffenberger 1992, 498. Kreiter 2010; Kreiter et al. in press. 12 Gherdán et al. 2004a; Gherdán et al. 2004b; Szakmány et al. 2004; Szakmány et al. 2005; Szilágyi–Szakmány 2007; Starnini 2008. 13 Gherdán et al. 2004a; Gherdán et al. 2004b; Szilágyi–Szakmány 2007. 14 Kreiter 2010. 10

11

Petrographic analysis of Körös ceramics from Méhtelek–Nádas

fact that very ¿ne-grained raw materials were available at Méhtelek (Fabric III, and cp. also the geological description of the area) and were indeed used, even though other, coarser raw materials were preferred. According to our present knowledge, Ibrány, Nagykörü and Méhtelek represent the northernmost settlements of the Körös culture. Of these sites, the distinct ceramic technological tradition observed at Méhtelek can perhaps be attributed to the extensive social relationships of the Körös settlers with Transylvania. Still, the reasons for the ceramic technological differences at Méhtelek require further studies, as well as the examination of sites in north-eastern Hungary and Transylvania. It has been argued that the clear preference for potting from medium to coarse-grained raw materials requires a different technological knowledge than the production of ceramics from very ¿ne-grained raw material15 because the use of excessive amounts of minerals (e.g. quartz) or other rock tempers in different size ranges may cause cracking: the coarser the grains, the more they expand, weakening the end product because during ¿ring the risk of crack propagation becomes higher.16 The Körös vessels with coarse inclusions at Méhtelek had to be ¿red carefully in order to avoid crack propagation and the subsequent breakage of the vessels. The absence of crack propagations in the samples may indicate a relatively low ¿ring temperature, which is supported by the XRD analysis, and perhaps the short duration of ¿ring. Nevertheless, the utilisation of medium-coarse raw materials indicates an advanced knowledge by the potters of how to ¿re medium to coarse-grained vessels without cracking them. A closer look at Early Neolithic ceramic technological practices reveals that compared to the Middle or Late Neolithic,17 ceramic technology shows little variability in terms of the utilization of raw materials and tempers. The ceramic technology of the Middle Neolithic Bükk culture at Aggtelek–Baradla-barlang, Borsod–Derékegyháza, FelsĘvadász–Várdomb and Sajószentpéter–Kövecses,18 the manufacturing techniques of the TLP, Sopot and Malo Korenovo cultures employed at Becsehely–Bükkaljai-dĦlĘ,19 the TLP techniques at Balatonszárszó–Kis-erdei-dĦlĘ20 and the Sopot techniques at Fajsz–Garadomb, the Lengyel and Tisza ceramic technologies at Aszód–Papi földek21 and the Lengyel pottery from Belvárdgyula–Szarkahegy, Szemely– Hegyes and ZengĘvárkony22 reÀect a greater technological variability in terms of the utilisation of raw materials and tempers. Petrographic analyses of ALP ceramics from Szarvas 823 and TLP, Notenkopf and Sopot vessels from Bicske– Galagonyás24 too indicate differences in Middle Neolithic ceramic technologies. Similar observations were made at the Zseliz settlement investigated at Szécsény–Ültetés.25 Chaff

tempering seems to have disappeared by the Late Neolithic as shown by the ¿nds from the Lengyel settlements at Szemely– Hegyes, ZengĘvárkony, Belvárdgyula–Szarkahegy26 and from the Lengyel/Tisza settlement at Aszód–Papi földek.27 A decrease in vegetal tempering towards the Late Neolithic has also been reported from Poland.28 The available data suggest that Early Neolithic potters followed a potting tradition that allowed little variability in terms of technological choices.29 Decreased variability in ceramic technology suggest that Early Neolithic ceramic traditions were conservative. One strand of that tradition, however, chaff tempering, became a constant element that survived throughout the Early Neolithic and partially survived into the Middle Neolithic. An intriguing feature of chaff tempering at Méhtelek is that the amount of chaff used is low and it probably did not change the physical and thermal properties of the clay, which was predominantly tempered with medium to coarse-grained sand.30 At Méhtelek, we witness a peculiar case when potters practiced a ceramic tradition distinct from other Körös sites, but nonetheless used chaff tempering, even though in scarce amounts. It has been suggested that such a little amount of chaff temper in excessively sand tempered raw materials probably did not contribute to the physical and thermal properties of the vessels, let alone decrease the weight of vessels.31 It seems likely that the potters used chaff temper because this is what their tradition required them to do and potters followed the established tradition without questioning the functional viability of tempering practices. Recent ceramic technological studies emphasize that Neolithic ceramic traditions have a particularly homogenous technology. The interregional utilization of chaff temper points to extensive social relations between communities across a wide geographical area. This phenomenon can also be observed outside of Hungary. For example, the petrographic analysis of Early Neolithic Starþevo pottery from Vinkovci and Ždralovi in Slavonia and of Middle Neolithic LP vessels from Tomašica and Malo Korenovo in Croatia show strong similarities in that both cultural groups preferred chaff tempering.32 In the Banat region of Romania, a comparison of ¿ve Starþevo–Criú sites (Dudeútii Vechi, Foeni–Sălaú Foeni–Gaz, Fratelia and ParĠa) with two Transylvanian settlements (Gura Baciului and ùeuúa La–Cărarea Morii) also indicated similar technological practices regarding the use of chaff temper.33 Impressed Ware, Danilo and Hvar culture pottery from sites along the western and eastern Adriatic coastline in Croatia and Italy does not show the utilisation of chaff temper,34 although this tempering practice rarely appears in the Impressed Ware culture.35 Spataro has argued that the technological differences in using chaff temper reÀect the marked difference between the Starþevo–Criú culture and other cultural groups.36 In Poland, the ceramic analyses of Želiezovce and Notenkopf vessels

Kreiter 2010. Rice 1987, 104. 17 Szakmány–Starnini 2007; Kreiter 2010; Kreiter et al. in press; Zsók et al. in press. 18 Szakmány 2001; Szilágyi et al. 2008. 19 Kalicz et al. in press. 20 Zsók et al. in press. 21 Kreiter–Viktorik 2011. 22 Kreiter–Szakmány 2008a; Kreiter–Szakmány 2008b; Kreiter et al. 2009. 23 Szakmány et al. 2005; Szakmány–Starnini 2007. 24 Szakmány 1996. 25 Szakmány 2008. 15 16

116

Kreiter–Szakmány 2008a; Kreiter–Szakmány 2008b; Kreiter et al. 2009. Kreiter–Viktorik 2011. 28 Rauba-Bukowska 2009, 247. 29 Kreiter et al. in press. 30 Cp. Kreiter et al. in press. 31 Kreiter 2010. 32 Spataro 2006a. 33 Spataro 2004; Spataro 2006b; Spataro 2008. 34 Spataro 2002, 196–197; Spataro 2008, 97. 35 Spataro 2002, 196. 36 Spataro 2008, 97. 26

27

Petrographic analysis of Körös ceramics from Méhtelek–Nádas

also show that chaff tempering was employed in the Linear Pottery distribution.37 An intriguing observation made by both Spataro and Rauba-Bukowska is that there is no clear correlation between fabrics and vessel types. Thus, chaff tempering was used with all types of raw materials to produce all sorts of vessel types. The available ceramic petrographic data from Hungary similarly shows no relationship between vessel types and fabric groups38 and the ceramic technological data harmonise with studies carried out outside Hungary. This points to a consistency in the transmission of technological traditions within and between groups, indicating that the reproduction of technological traditions was not only similar in a wide geographical area, but that it was also remarkably stable, suggesting strong social relationships between Neolithic communities. Acknowledgements We wish to thank Gábor Bertók, Csilla Gáti, Olga Vajda, Olivér Gábor and the Museums of County Baranya for providing ceramic samples from Szemely–Hegyes, ZengĘvárkony and Belvárdgyula–Szarkahegy for the analysis. We are also indebted to Eszter Bánffy for providing ceramic samples from Fajsz–Garadomb, Szakmár–Kisülés and Szentgyörgyvölgy– Pityerdomb; to Tibor Marton and Krisztián Oross for ceramic samples from Balatonszárszó–Kis-erdei-dĦlĘ; to Katalin H. Simon and Eszter Bánffy for samples from Gellénháza– Városrét; to Nándor Kalicz for samples from Aszód–Papiföldek; to Pál Raczky and Nándor Kalicz for samples from Méhtelek–Nádas; to Pál Raczky and László Domboróczki for ceramic samples from Ibrány–NagyerdĘ dĦlĘ and to Pál Raczky for ceramic samples from Nagykörü–Gyümölcsös. X-ray diffraction analysis was carried out in the Institute for Geochemical Research of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. I would like to thank Mária Tóth for performing the XRD measurements. The research project was supported by a grant from the Hungarian Scienti¿c Research Fund (“Understanding the relationship between Neolithic communities through ceramic analysis”: Grant No. NK 68255; “Aszód–Papi földek Late Neolithic site: connection between east and west”: Grant No. K 75677). References Borsy, Zoltán 1954: Geomorfológiai vizsgálatok a BeregSzatmári-síkságon. Földrajzi ÉrtesítĘ 2, 270–279. Borsy, Zoltán 1969: A domborzat kialakulása és mai képe. Szatmári síkság. In A Tiszai Alföld. Ed. Sándor Marosi and JenĘ Szilárd. Magyarország tájföldrajza. Budapest, 27–37. Kuti, László (ed.) 2005: L-34-40 Fehérgyarmat. Magyarország fedett földtani térképe 1:100 000. Budapest. Gherdán, Katalin, T. Biró, Katalin and Szakmány, György 2004a: Petrologic studies on Early Neolithic pottery from Vörs, SW Hungary. Acta Mineralogica Petrographica 45: 2, 41–48. Gherdán, Katalin, T. Biró, Katalin, Szakmány, György and Tóth, Mária 2004b: Technological investigation of Early

37 38

Rauba-Bukowska 2009. Szakmány–Starnini 2007; Starnini 2008; Kreiter 2010; Kreiter et al. in press; Zsók et al. in press.

Neolithic pottery from Vörs, southwest Hungary. Trabalhos de Arqueologia, Lisboa 42, 111–118. Gyalog, László (ed.) 2005: Magyarázó Magyarország fedett földtani térképéhez (az egységek rövid leírása). Budapest. Kalicz, Nándor 2007: Az Ęskori agyagszobrászat kezdetei a Nyugat-Dunántúlon. In Százszor szépek. Emberábrázolás az Ęskori Nyugat-Magyarországon. Ed. Gábor Ilon. Szombathely, 8–17. Kalicz, Nándor, Kreiter, Attila, Kreiter, Eszter and Tokai, Zita Mária (in press): A Neolitikum kronológiai kérdései Becsehely-Bükkaljai-dĦlĘ lelĘhelyen. In MȍMOȈ. ėskoros Kutatók IV. Összejövetele 2006. Karátson, Dávid and Szakács, Sándor 1997: A belsĘkárpáti mészalkáli vulkánosság. A Kárpát-Pannon térség lemeztektonikai értelmezése. In Pannon Enciklopédia – Magyarország földje. Ed. Dávid Karátson. Budapest, 68. Kreiter, Attila 2010: Crafting difference: Early Neolithic (Körös culture) ceramic traditions in north-east Hungary. In Neolithization of the Carpathian Basin: northernmost distribution of the Starþevo/Körös culture. Eds Janusz K. Kozáowski and Pál Raczky. Kraków–Budapest, 177–193. Kreiter, Attila, Pánczél, Péter and PetĘ, Ákos in press: Materializing tradition: ceramic production in Early and Middle Neolithic Hungary. In The Early Neolithic of the Danube-Tisza interÀuve, southern Hungary. Ed. Eszter Bánffy. Budapest. Kreiter, Attila and Szakmány, György 2008a: ElĘzetes tanulmány Belvárdgyula–Szarkahegy (M60-as gyorsforgalmi út 98. sz. lelĘhely) késĘ neolitikus (Lengyel kultúra) településrĘl származó kerámiák petrográ¿ai vizsgálatáról – Preliminary report on the petrographic analysis of Late Neolithic ceramics from Belvárdgyula– Szarkahegy (route M60, No. 98). Archeometriai MĦhely 3, 65–74. Kreiter, Attila and Szakmány, György 2008b: ElĘzetes tanulmány Szemely–Hegyes és ZengĘvárkony késĘ neolitikus (Lengyel kultúra) településrĘl származó kerámiák petrográ¿ai vizsgálatáról – Preliminary report on the petrographic analysis of Late Neolithic ceramics from Szemely–Hegyes and ZengĘvárkony. Archeometriai MĦhely 2, 55–68. Kreiter, Attila, Szakmány, György and Kázmér, Miklós 2009: Ceramic technology and social process in Late Neolithic Hungary. In Interpreting silent artefacts: petrographic approaches to archaeological ceramics. Ed. Patrick Sean Quinn. Oxford, 101–119. Kreiter, Attila and Viktorik, Orsolya 2011: Tiszai és lengyeli kultúra kerámiáinak petrográ¿ai vizsgálata Aszód– Papi földek lelĘhelyrĘl, valamint összehasonlítása helyi üledékekkel. Unpublished report in the Central Archives of the National Heritage Protection Of¿ce, Hungarian National Museum. Inv. no. 2011-0003/1. Lóki, József 1997: A tiszai Alföld. Magyarország tájai. In Pannon Enciklopédia – Magyarország földje. Ed. Dávid Karátson. Budapest, 300. Marosi, Sándor and Somogyi, Sándor 1990: Magyarország Kistájainak Katasztere I–II. Budapest. Nyárádi, Mihály 1959: Pipakészségek Szabolcs megyében. A Nyíregyházi Jósa András Múzeum Évkönyve 2, 113–125. PCRG 1997: The study of later prehistoric pottery: general policies and guidelines for analysis and publication.

117

Petrographic analysis of Körös ceramics from Méhtelek–Nádas

Prehistoric Ceramic Research Group: Occasional Papers Nos 1 and 2. Oxford. Pfaffenberger, Bryan 1992: Social anthropology of technology. Annual Review of Anthropology 21, 491–516. Rauba-Bukowska, Anna 2009: Bone temper in Early Neolithic vessels from southern Poland. Examinations using scanning microscopy. In Creating communities. New advances in Central European Neolithic research. Eds Daniela Hofmann and Penny Bickle. Oxford. 235–248. Rice, Prudence M. 1987: Pottery analysis: a sourcebook. Chicago. Somogyi, Sándor 1961: Hazánk folyóhálózatának fejlĘdéstörténeti vázlata. Földrajzi Közlemények 85: 9 (1), 25–50. Somogyi, Sándor 1997: ėsvízrajz. Az éghajlat, a vizek, a talaj és az élĘvilág földrajza. In Pannon Enciklopédia – Magyarország földje. Ed. Dávid Karátson. Budapest, 245. Spataro, Michela 2002: The ¿rst farming communities of the Adriatic: pottery production and circulation in the Early to Middle Neolithic. Società per la preistoria e protostoria della regione Friuli–Venezia Giulia. Quaderno 9. Edizioni Svevo Trieste. Spataro, Michela 2004: Early Neolithic pottery production in the Balkans: minero-petrographic analyses of the ceramics from the Starþevo-Criú site of Foeni–Sălaú (Banat, Romania). Atti della Società per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli–Venezia Giulia 14, 25–43. Spataro, Michela 2006a: Pottery production at a Linear Pottery Culture site: a different ceramic technology from that of the Starþevo culture? A case study: the site of Tomašica (Garešnica, Croatia). Atti della Società per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli–Venezia Giulia 15, 117–134. Spataro, Michela 2006b: Pottery typology versus technological choices: an early Neolithic case study from Banat (Romania). Analele Banatului 14: 1, 63–77. Spataro, Michela 2008: Early Neolithic pottery production in Romania: Gura Baciului and ùeuúa La–Cărarea Morii (Transylvania). In Living well together? Settlement and materiality in the Neolithic of South-East and Central Europe. Eds Douglass Bailey, Alasdair Whittle and Daniela Hofmann. Oxford, 91–100. Starnini, Elisabetta 2008: Material culture traditions and identity. In Living well together? Settlement and materiality in the Neolithic of South-East and Central Europe. Eds Douglass Bailey, Alasdair Whittle and Daniela Hofmann. Oxford, 101–107. Sümeghy, József 1944: A Tiszántúl. Magyar tájak földtani leírása. Budapest. Szakmány, György 1996: Petrographical investigation in thin section of some potsherds. In Excavations at Bicske–

Galagonyás (Part III). The Notenkopf and Sopot–Bicske cultural phases. Eds János Makkay, Elisabetta Starnini and Magda Tulok. Trieste: Socieatá Per La Preistoria e Protostoria Della Regione Friuli–Venezia Giulia 6, 143–150. Szakmány, György 2001: FelsĘvadász–Várdomb neolitikus és bronzkori kerámiatípusainak petrográ¿ai vizsgálata. A Miskolci Herman Ottó Múzeum Évkönyve 40, 107–125. Szakmány, György 2008: Kerámia nyersanyagok, kerámiák a mai Magyarország területén a neolitikumtól a XVIII. század végéig. In Az ásványok és az ember a mai Magyarország területén a XVIII. század végéig. Fókuszban az ásványi anyag. Tudományos konferencia 2007. március 2. Geotudományok. Ed. Sándor Szakáll. A Miskolci Egyetem Közleménye A sorozat, Bányászat, 74. kötet. Alkalmazott ásvány- és kĘzettan. Miskolc, 49–90. Szakmány, György, Gherdán, Katalin and Starnini, Elisabetta 2004: Kora neolitikus kerámia készítés Magyarországon: a Körös és a Starþevo kultúra kerámiáinak összehasonlító archeometriai vizsgálata. Archeometriai MĦhely 1, 28–31. Szakmány, György and Starnini, Elisabetta 2007: Archaeometric research on the ¿rst pottery production in the Carpathian Basin: manufacturing traditions of the Early Neolithic, Körös Culture ceramics. Archaeometriai MĦhely 2, 5–19. Szakmány, György, Starnini, Elisabetta and Raucsik, Béla 2005: A preliminary archaeometric investigation of EarlyNeolithic pottery from the Körös culture (S. Hungary). In Proceedings of the 33rd International Symposium on Archaeometry, 22–26 April, 2002, Amsterdam. Eds Henk Kars and Ernst Burke. Geoarchaeological and Bioarchaeological Studies 3. Amsterdam, 269–272. Szilágyi, Veronika and Szakmány, György 2007: Petrographic and geochemical study of ceramics of Neolithic settlements on the northern boundary of the Great Hungarian Plain – TiszaszĘlĘs–Domaháza (Körös culture) and Füzesabony– Gubakút (ALP culture, Szatmár group). Archeometriai MĦhely 3, 31–46. Szilágyi, Veronika, T. Biró, Katalin, Csengeri, Piroska, S. Koós, Judit, Szakmány, György, Tóth, Mária and Taubald, Heinrich 2008: ElĘzetes eredmények a bükki kultúra ¿nomkerámiájának nyersanyag azonosítási és technológiai vizsgálatából – Bükk pottery-master craftsmen of the Stone Age. Archeometriai MĦhely 3, 27–40. Urbancsek, János 1965: A Nyírség, a Bodrogköz és a Rétköz, valamint a Beregi-Szatmári-síkság vízföldtani viszonyai. Földrajzi ÉrtesítĘ 14, 421–443. Zsók, Ildikó, Szakmány, György, Kreiter, Attila and Marton, Tibor in press: A balatonszárszói neolit korú kerámia leletegyüttes archeometriai vizsgálata – Archaeometric investigation of Neolithic ceramics from Balatonszárszó. In Környezet – Ember – Kultúra: az alkalmazott természettudományok és a régészet párbeszéde. Eds Attila Kreiter, Ákos PetĘ and Beáta Tugya.

118

Petrographic analysis of Körös ceramics from Méhtelek–Nádas

Fig. 1. 1. Geological map of Méhtelek, 2–4. samples of Fabric I: 2. Sample 1, resorbed quartz grain, +N, 3. Sample 3, resorbed quartz grains, +N, 4. sample 6, resorbed quartz grain, +N, 5. Sample 6, the white line marking the meeting of two different raw materials, the upper one containing more non-plastic inclusions, +N

119

Petrographic analysis of Körös ceramics from Méhtelek–Nádas

Fig. 2. Samples of Fabric IIa. 1. Sample 2, silicified quartz grain, +N, 2. Sample 5, recrystallized quartz? grain, +N, 3. Sample 12, silicified and resorbed quartz grain, +N, 4. Sample 12, completely silicified inclusion, +N, 5. Sample 23, re-crystallized and silicified volcanic glass, +N, 6. Sample 24, re-crystallized and silicified volcanic glass, +N

120

Petrographic analysis of Körös ceramics from Méhtelek–Nádas

Fig. 3. Samples of Fabric IIa. 1. Sample 24, re-crystallized volcanic glass fragment, +N, 2. Sample 26, resorbed quartz, +N, 3. Sample 26, resorbed quartz, +N, 4. Sample 28, resorbed quartz to which a re-crystallized volcanic fragment is attached, +N, 5. Sample 29, re-crystallized and silicified volcanic glass, +N, 6. Sample 31, re-crystallized and silicified volcanic glass, +N

121

Petrographic analysis of Körös ceramics from Méhtelek–Nádas

Fig. 4. The fabric of Figurine 2. 1. re-crystallized and silicified volcanic glass, +N, 2. re-crystallized and silicified volcanic glass in higher magnification, +N, 3. the fabric of the figurine with volcanic inclusions, +N, 4. resorbed quartz grains, +N, 5. the arrow points to the “gap” between the core of the figurine and another clay layer applied onto it to form the body, +N, 6. the fabric of the figurine shows re-crystallized and silicified volcanic glass fragments in higher magnification, +N

122

Petrographic analysis of Körös ceramics from Méhtelek–Nádas

Fig. 5. Samples of Fabric IIb. 1. Sample 27, +N, 2. Sample 27, +N, 3. Sample 32, +N, 4. Sample 33, +N, 5. Sample 34, +N, 6. Sample 34, +N. The samples show coarse aleuritic (2), very fine-grained (1) and fine to mediumgrained (3–6) sandstone

123

Petrographic analysis of Körös ceramics from Méhtelek–Nádas

Fig. 6. Samples of Fabric IIb and IIc. 1–4. Samples of Fabric IIb: 1. Sample 35, fine to medium-grained inclusions, the elongated voids indicate chaff tempering, +N, 2. Sample 36, fine to coarse-grained inclusions, the one in the middle is fine to medium-grained sandstone, +N, 3. Sample 37, fine to medium-grained sandstone, +N, 4. Sample 38, fine to medium-grained feldspar and sandstone fragments, +N, 5–6. Samples of Fabric IIc: 5. Sample 30, coarse quartz with foliated texture, +N, 6. Sample 30, re-crystallized and silicified volcanic glass and coarse muscovite mica spec, +N

124

Petrographic analysis of Körös ceramics from Méhtelek–Nádas

Fig. 7. Samples of Fabric III. 1. Sample 8, serial, very fine-grained serial fabric, the elongated voids indicate chaff tempering, +N, 2. Sample 8, serial, very fine-grained fabric in increased magnification, +N, 3. Sample 9, serial, very fine-grained fabric, +N, 4. Sample 11, serial, very fine-grained fabric, +N, 5. Sample 13, serial, very fine-grained fabric, +N, 6. Sample 14, serial, very fine-grained fabric, showing a void of chaff tempering, +N

125

Petrographic analysis of Körös ceramics from Méhtelek–Nádas

Fig. 8. Samples of Fabric III. 1. Sample 15, serial, very fine-grained fabric showing a void of chaff tempering, +N, 2. Sample 16, serial, very fine-grained fabric +N, 3. Sample 17, serial, very fine-grained fabric in decreased magnification, +N, 4. Sample 17, serial, very fine-grained fabric, +N, 5. Sample 18, serial, very fine-grained fabric, +N, 6. Sample 19, serial, very fine-grained serial fabric, although with slightly larger (still very fine) inclusions than the other samples in this group, +N

126

Petrographic analysis of Körös ceramics from Méhtelek–Nádas

Fig. 9. Samples of Fabric III. 1. Sample 20, serial, very fine-grained fabric showing voids of chaff tempering, +N, 2. Sample 21, serial, very fine-grained fabric showing voids of chaff tempering in decreased magnification, +N, 3. Sample 21, serial, very fine-grained fabric showing voids of chaff tempering, +N, 4. Sample 22, serial, very fine-grained fabric, showing voids of chaff tempering, +N, 5. Sample 25, serial, very fine-grained fabric showing voids of chaff tempering in decreased magnification, +N, 6. Sample 25, serial, very fine-grained fabric, +N

127

Petrographic analysis of Körös ceramics from Méhtelek–Nádas

Fig. 10. 1. Figurine 1, serial, very fine-grained fabric, +N, 2. Figurine 3, serial, very fine-grained fabric, +N, 3. Figurine 4, serial, very fine-grained fabric in decreased magnification (the white line marks the homogene meeting of the exterior and interior part of the figurine indicating that it was not made up of different layers), +N, 4. Figurine 4, serial, very fine-grained fabric showing voids of chaff tempering, +N, 5. Figurine 5, serial, very finegrained fabric in decreased magnification (the white line marks the homogene meeting of the exterior and interior parts of the figurine indicating that it was not made up of different layers), +N, 6. Figurine 5, serial, very fine-grained fabric, +N

128

Petrographic analysis of Körös ceramics from Méhtelek–Nádas

Fig. 11. Samples of Fabric IV. 1. Sample 4, re-crystallized and silicified volcanic glass, the voids indicate chaff tempering, +N, 2. Sample 4, re-crystallized and silicified volcanic glass but with 1N, the voids indicate chaff tempering, 3. Sample 7, resorbed quartz grain in decreased magnification, +N, 4. Sample 7, resorbed quartz grains, +N, 5. Sample 10, re-crystallized and silicified volcanic glass, the voids indicate chaff tempering, +N, 6. Sample 10, re-crystallized and silicified volcanic glass in increased magnification, +N

129