Csengeri Piroska - Tóth Arnold (szerk.): A Herman Ottó Múzeum évkönyve 54. (Miskolc, 2015)
Régészet - Kósa Polett: Meggyasszó-Halom-oldal dűlő: New data int he Tumulus culture research from North-eastern Hungary
196 Polett Kása too broad. Overall, Megyaszó-Halom-oldal dűlő can be categorized as a classic Tumulus cemetery from the Rei. Br. C period, with some rather rich Piliny influence. ANALYSIS OF PITS Near the cemetery, 4 pits were found, 2 of which were not fully excavated meaning that no findings were derived from them (pit S14 and S15). Besides, the extent of pit S8 cannot be determined, as neither its depth nor the edges of it were found during excavation. Its possible interpretation as a pit can be based on its finds. Pit S4 is completely excavated and contained diverse finds. In pit S4 a wide spectrum of ceramic fragments can be displayed, from poor quality domestic ceramics to the finer, thin-walled vessels. Within the reconstructed pieces, undecorated, III.B.l type compressed globular mugs (Table 6. 14/1—4, 6, 8, 10; Table 7. 15/7), biconical, III.C.l type mug with handle (Table 6. 5/14), and II. A.1 type strongly profiled bowl fragments (Table 6. 12/14) can be found. Furthermore, there are some thick-walled handle fragments that probably belonged to storage vessels (Table 6. 14/9, 11; Table 7, 15/1), some rim pieces decorated with knobs (Table 6. 7/14; Table 7. 15/6), some roughened, probably brushed storage vessel pieces (Table 7. 15/4, 8), along with two knobbed fragments (Table 8. 16/1, 4) and a finger-impressed vessel (Table 8. 16/2). There are also some rim, body and bottom pieces which are less suitable for reconstruction (/Table 7. 15/2—3, 5, 9-10; Table 8. 16/3, 5-7, 9). Furthermore, 73 other fragments were found which cannot be reconstructed at all and only their wall thickness can provide some information. In pit S8 far less, a total of 23 fragments were found of which five can be emphasised and possibly interpreted. There are 2 rim fragments, one of them probably belonged to a thin-walled mug or jar (/Table 5. 13/5), the other to a thick-walled storage vessel (/Table 5. 13/2). A fragment was possibly the bottom of a bowl (Table 5. 13/1) while another might have been used as a storage vessel or pot (/Table 5. 13/6) due to its rough surface and wall thickness. The only notable side fragment was decorated with a knob (Table 5. 13/3) and the thickness of its wall suggests it being a storage pot as well. Three pieces of chipped stone was found. Two of them are dark grey shards of obsidian that occur in the southern part of the Eperjes—Tokaj Mountains, which is close to the present-day village of Tokaj (T. BIRÓ 2004, 3). These shards can be classified as Slovakian obsidians (type Cl), as they are characterized by transparent and translucent light, bright glass light, and it was the most commonly used type in prehistory (T. BIRÓ 2004, 5). Hence raw material came from the adjacent mountains. The surface is formed, but without further examination, their exact function cannot be reconstructed. The third stone was determined as limnoquartzite. This rock is also typical in the Cserhát, Mátra and Tokaj Mountains (SZEKSZÁRDI et al. 2010, 3), and it is generally widespread. It is easily accessible as it can be collected from the surface or near-surface depths (SZEKSZÁRDI et al. 2010, 2). Long lasting instruments could have been created out of them. No examination took place on the daub material. A total of 6 pieces were discovered, and a piece in grave SI. Since the grave was dug into a probable pit (S8), the daub could have easily fallen into the grave while inhuming the burial. The daubs are bright orange and have small plant marks on the surface, but because of their poor condition, plants cannot be determined. Three pieces can be emphasised, which are compacted and rammed on one side, thus these could have been plastering or parts of a wall. They might have been the elements of a building but their quantity is so low that no conclusions can be made. However, burnt house remains or daubs were sometimes scattered into pits by Tumulus people (SÁNTA 2010, 516; KISS 2007, 220-221).37 There is a single pebble among the finds (/Table 10. 4/19), which has no activity marks on its surface, so further analysis is not necessary. Rubble stones (Table 10. 21/3—4) were only found in pit S8. They are smallsized, and there is no mark of usage on them either. A lone piece of slag was found (Table 10. 1/21), which can be from copper or bronze raw material. Without sampling, its origin cannot be determined, but it might be an evidence to some possible metalworking. There are a total of 8 different grinding stone pieces from the pits. One came from pit S8 (Table 10. 2/21) and 7 from pit S4 (Table 10. 19/1—3). They are light grey coloured and roughly the same size and they also had the same surface treatment. The parts are not matching, but it can be assumed that the fragments found abreast once belonged together. The flat surface assumes active use. Animal bones were found in pit S4 (/Table 9. 17/1-8). A mandible piece could have belonged to a predator, e.g. a larger dog. 11 fragments were of some bovine type, 7 bones pertained to small ruminants, such as sheep or goat, and a small shell fragment was also found. 37 E.g.: Ordacsehi-Bugaszeg.
