Folia archeologica 39.
Tibor Kovács: Arcosedény Tószegről tőrábrázolással
86 TIBOR KOVÁCS population. 1 7 More than two decades ago the present author tentatively suggested that the ceramic inventory of the upper levels reflected a mingling of the pottery forms and ornamental motifs of the Vatya and Füzesabony cultures. 1 8 In a brief report on the 1973 — 74 campaign, I. Bona discarded the possibility of a settlement level associable with the Füzesabony culture at Tószeg, 1 9 and in another study he explicitly stated that in its final phase the Tószeg settlement had been, in his terminology, inhabited by the population of the Vatya-Koszider culture. 20 In contrast, the present author considers Tószeg to have been one of the major settlements of the Füzesabony culture. 2 1 Wherein lies 'truth', are these two contrasting opinions really as contradictory as they seem? It cannot yet be established whether population groups of the Füzesabony culture had in fact settled on the Tószeg mound in a late phase of its life, or whether it was a 'surviving Hatvan population' that had adopted characteristic elements of its pottery. 2 2 Since — no matter how surprising — little is published of the reliably excavated settlement finds and assemblages of the Füzesabony culture, most studies only offer a selection of various find types. 2 3 It is nonetheless fairly clear that the structure and type of the Tószeg houses basicylly corresponds to the buildings uncovered on other tell settlements of the Tisza region. 2 4 The pottery of the upper levels — including the unpublished finds from the older campaigns — shows a percentage dominance of Füzesabony pottery forms and ornamental motifs (cf. Fid. 3.1— 8). 2 5 Some of these are wholly identical with ceramic types from other Füzesabony sites, whilst others are reminiscent of Hatvan pottery or the considerably less known finds from the northwestern part of the Otomani (Gyulavarsánd) distribution territory. Characteristic forms of the Maros (Perjámos) culture are present in smaller number (cf. Fig. 4. 7—8, 11, 13). 2 6 However, finds sharing similarities or identicl with the youngest Vatya pottery (cf. Fig. 4. 3 — 4, 6, 9 — 10) are more important in this respect. 2 7 Obviously, this 'rough typological attribution' can, at the most, only serve as an indication of the role played by the pottery styles of neighbouring cultures in the formation of the Tószeg inventory that includes a number of unique vari1 7 Mozsolics 1967, 119-120; Kalicz 1968, 189; Bona 1975. 146. - In the later, supplementary part of the latter monograph — that was for a long time only available as a manuscript — Bona (169) defined these as belongig to the Füzesabony period rather than to the Füzesabony culture on the basis of the observations made during the excavations at Jászdózsa. 1 8 Kovács 1973, 16. 1 9 Bona 1979-80, 93, 106. 2 0 Bona — Nováki 1982, 82, 113-114. 2 1 Kovács 1984, 237-238. 2 2 Bona 1979-80, 93, 106. 2 3 E. g. Füzesabony: Tompa 1936; Barca: Hájek 1961; Spissky Stvrtok: Vladár 1973. 2 4 Csalog 1952; Banner-Bóna-Márton 1957, 26-87; Stanczik 1979-80. 2 5 Cp. also Mozsolics 1952, PI. 2. 3,6,8,16, PI. 3. 9, 21, PI. 4. 3, PI. 5. 21, PI. 6. 9,12; BannerBóna — Márton 1957, Fig. 6. 3-5,7-8,11,13-15, Fig. 7. 10-12, 18-19, Fig. 20. 1,4-5,8,10, 11-13, Fig. 22. 10,17; Bona 1979-80, Figs 17-21. 2 6 Cp. also Mozsolics 1952, PI. 2. 9,12, PI. 3. 14,16,18; Banner-Bóna-Márton 1957, Fig. 22. 11,15, Fig. 27. 35; Bona 1979-80, Figs 24-28. 2 7 Cp. also Mozsolics 1952, Fig. 1, PI. 2. 15, PI. 4. 1-2,5,11-12,14, PI. 5. 9,12,16; BannerBóna - Márton 1957, Fig. 6.1,6,10, Fig. 7. 5 - 6,9, Fig. 19.16, Fig. 20. 6 - 7,13 - 14, Fig. 22.1 - 2,5, PI. 10. lower left: cup, upper left: jug, storage vessel.
