Csengeri Piroska - Tóth Arnold (szerk.): A Herman Ottó Múzeum évkönyve 55. (Miskolc, 2016)

Régészet - B. Hellerbrandt Magdolna: A Gáva-kultúra települése Köröm-Kápolna-dombon

A Gáva-kultúra települése Köröm-Kápolna-dombon

113

In ethnography, pits are named after the shape of their mouth and outline. Some of the pits brought to light at Köröm- Kápolna-domb were beehive-shaped, with funnel-shaped necks (Fig. 3). Beehive-shaped pits are seen in Fig. 25. Of the beehive-shaped pits, only feature no. 63 was well enough preserved to measure the mouth, which was 160 cm wide. The greatest width of the pits varied between 136 cm and 240 cm. Their depth, measured from the destruction layer (that is, without the additional one meter of soil that later covered the settlement) was 38—110 cm.

The circular or pear-shaped grain storage pits usually had cylindrical necks, according to ethnographic observations (IKVAI 1966, 349). Their size varied according to need. Fig. 27 depicts rotund grain storage pits with rounded bottoms and cylindrical necks, discovered on Köröm-Kápolna-domb. Feature no. 42 is of special interest; this egg-shaped pit corresponds to type 9 in the classification system of ethnographer N. Ikvai (IKVAI 1966, 362, II. t. 9). This type was usually dug into medium-hard and hard ground. The pit’s mouth was somewhat oblique and widened towards the top, similarly to a pot. Pits similar to those shown in Fig. 27 were found at Rázom duringj. Kovalovszki’s excavations, next to the 10th-century Árpád Period houses. Neither plastering nor firing was evidenced (KOVALOVSZKI 1960, 39—40). Grain storage pits of various shapes came to light during the archaeological survey of Túrkeve-Móric by I. Méri. They yielded no grain (MERI 1954, 147), but grain was also absent in the ethnographically documented examples (IKVAI 1966, 365). In ethnography, the rectangular-shaped pits are also called “burial pits”, or burial-shaped pits. These were shallow pits with wide mouths that made the stored grain go bad rather quickly (IKVAI 1966, 348, Fig. 9). Such rectangular pits were found on Köröm- Kápolna-domb in feature no. 7 (Fig. 26, Fig. 28. 3); this was 266 cm long, 100 cm wide and 86 cm deep. Feature no. 18b was similar, 240 cm long, 95 cm wide and 45—51 cm deep. The Köröm pits were filled with rubble. In feature no. 7, wattle-and-daub as well as fired clay fragments were found, while feature no. 18b was filled in with wattle-and-daub, ash and secondarily burnt pottery shards (Fig. 42). Pottery fragments from features 18a and 18b were identified as matching during restoration.

So-called burial-shapedpits came to light during Zsolt Gallina’s excavation of the Köröm-Kápolna-domb in 2014. SNR 008 was one of these. Its elongated, oval-shaped spot was 154 cm long, 88 cm wide and the pit was 24 cm deep, filled with fragments of wattle-and-daub. Feature SNR 015 measured 130 cm in length, 84 cm in width and was only 7 cm deep. Feature SNR 016 was 206 cm long, 116 cm wide and 69 cm deep, with a rounded bottom. Feature SNR 018 measured 132 cm in length, 114 cm in width and 74 cm in depth; its spot had an elongated oval-shape, and the pit itself was filled with rubble. A number of circular pits came to light on Kápolna-domb (Fig. 28). Fig. 34 shows a photo of feature no. 32; two post holes are visible on the pit’s wall, ca. 14 cm below the mouth, and there are two similar holes on the opposite side. This phenomenon may be interpreted as remains of a trap. Ikvai documented several old grain storage pits that were turned into traps for catching wild game (IKVAI 1966, 369). Mihály Márkus mentions that sometimes the pit’s mouth was covered, a bait was placed on top, and the construction was used to catch hare (MÁRKUS 1937, 348). Feature no. 32 may have been used in beekeeping as well. Features no. 21 (Fig. 27. 5), no. 28, no. 29 and no. 33 (Fig. 33. 1—3) may also be associated with beekeeping. There was a small, tunnel-like opening on the pits’ bulgy sidewall, directed upwards. In the case of feature no. 21, this small opening had a rectangular cross section and continued on the surface as a small trench (Fig. 27. 5). Feature no. 29 had an oval-shaped opening, while feature no. 33 had a smaller, circular one. The function of these holes and, therefore, the pits themselves is unknown. The small size of these openings may suggest their use in beekeeping. Bees sometimes habit holes in the ground, especially in areas where trees are scarce. Partitioned hives were sometimes created by digging a cavity into the ground under a full hive, and so the bees continued to build their nest and honeycomb in the pit itself (ÖRÖSI 1952, 87). In Transylvania as well as in the swampy areas of Sárrét, beehives were covered with cones made of reed, straw and mud. Béla Gunda argues that this custom is a remnant of ancient European beekeeping (SZABADFALVI 1956, 475). Bee skeps made of wicker were used in plain areas. In order to provide some internal structure for the bees onto which they could attach their honeycomb, small sticks were placed into the skep, two in the small and four in the large skeps. The sticks were positioned perpendicular to the skep’s opening so that they could support the comb in an ideal manner (BOROS 1963, 60). Marietta Boros mentions one example from Mánfa, when bees were not housed in specifically made hives but in a jar for storing grain and beans, transformed into a beehive by a farmer in 1957 (the object is now stored in the Museum of Pécs; BOROS 1963, 72, Figs. 35—36). Here, the sticks were fixed on the sidewall and tied together in the middle. This solution reminds one of feature no. 32 at Köröm, where sticks must have been positioned to form a saltire (Fig. 34). There may have even been four rods that were tied together, similarly to the beehive of Mánfa. Rod holes situated under each other, as seen in feature no. 42, may also be identified as structures of old European beekeeping. So far, the earliest — and indirect — evidence for beekeeping in the area of present-day Hungary comes from the Roman Period, in the form of honey-cake moulds (H. KERECSÉNYI 1969, 5, footnotes 18—20).

Feature SNR 009 had a rectangular shape with round corners. It was 120 cm long and 86 cm wide, while it measured 13 cm in depth. A huge post hole was situated in the middle of the pit’s bottom; it was 24 x 42 cm in size, 20 cm deep, with a flat bottom; this was numbered as feature SNR 046. There was orange-colored, burnt soil on the bottom of both the pit and the post hole. A similar recess was observed in feature no. 82 (Fig. 28. 9): here the pit was 49 cm deep, with