Folia archeologica 18.
Tibor Kovács: Eastern Connections of North-Eastern Hungary in the Late Bronze Age
48 T. KOVÁCS Egyek culture whose people absorbed the local Felsőszőcs elements and those which could likely be traced back to the Komarovo culture. 4 8 According to Kemenczei's conclusions, here the identical resultant (the development of a new ethnic and cultural unit) is the outcome of the developmental lines following different paths (non-identical components and different changes). 4 9 Summing up the more important results of our topographical examination, the people of the Felsőszőcs group could only possess the eastern and southeastern part of the Nyírség and the population living in this area had to be essentially smaller than that belonging to the Egyek group dwelling in the Upper Tisza region and in the western part of the Nyírség. The territorial distribution of the finds shows that the centre of the Berkesz —Demecser ethnic group was the Nyírség (according to recent data the sites are rather rare in the Upper Tisza region and in the northern part of the Hajdúság), thus according to the topographical data the Egyek group, that of Felsőszőcs and the Berkesz —Demecser ethnic group cannot be contemporary. 5 0 Bearing in mind the results of our research and topographical examination up to now, we presume as a hypothesis that the motive force of events related to the development of the Berkesz —Demecser enthnic group must be found in the invasion of a new population (coming from the east) to North-Eastern Hungary. We have no direct data whatsoever for determining the form of settlement of the people characterized by the Berkesz —Demecser finds. The few finds referring to settlements (Székely—Bence-hegy, Fényeslitke, a part of Nyíregyháza—Bujtos) have been collected from the surface or got into the Museum from disturbed areas. The indirect data are also very scanty. N. Kalicz found only a few pits dug into the settlement level of the Ottomány culture at Rétközberencs —Paromdomb, the only authentically excavated part of a settlement of the Felsőszőcs group. 5 1 No settlements of the people of the tumulus culture is known from the Upper Tisza region. Only a few pits occurred in the singlelevelled settlement of the population of the early tumulus culture at Bag (to which the people of the Egyek group were genetically the most closely related). 52 In the areas east of North-Eastern Hungary (Transylvania, Carpathian Ukraine 5 3) in the single-levelled, open settlements of the Late Bronze Age cultures (Komoravo culture, 5 4 Noa culture, 5 5) a considerable amount of animal bones came to 4 8 Ibid. ; Kemenczei, T., Arch. Ért. 90 (1963) 183. 1 9 A solution to the problem is attempted below. 5 0 At Nyiribrony in the Békáshegyi dűlő area the finds of the Berkesz —Demecser type and the goods of a grave coming to light presumably from a cemetery of the tumulus culture 1 km. distance from each other. 5 1 Kalicz, N., Arch. Ért. 87 (1960) 6—7., Pl. VI., Pl. VII, nos. 1—7. 5 2 Kovács, T., FA 17 (1965) 65 ff. 5 3 Hereafter quoted as the eastern territories. 5 4 Ilinskaia, V. A., Poselenia komarovskoi kulturi u. s. Mosni. KSIA 10(1960) 49. ; Passek, T. S., Stoianka komarovskoi kulturi na Srednem Dnestre. KS 75 (1959) 160. ; Svesnikov, I. K., Pamiatniki piemen bronzovogo veka Prikarpatia i Zapodnoi Podolii. (Moscow 1958) 12. — Summary of a dissertation. 5 6 Zaharia, E., Das Gräberfeld von Balinteçti Cioinagi und einige Fragen der Bronzezeit in der Moldau. Dacia 7 (1963) 176.; Florescu,A. C., Contribuai la cunoaçterea culturii Noua. Arheologia Moldovei 2—3 (1964) 210.; Balaguri, E. A., Istoria piemen pozdne-bronzovogo perioda v Srednem Podnestrove (kultura Noa). (Kiev 1964) 5—7. — Summary of a dissertation.
