Kalicz Nándor - Koós Judit: Mezőkövesd-Mosolyás. A neolitikus Szatmár-csoport (AVK I) települése és temetője a kr. e. 6. évezred második feléből - Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén megye régészeti emlékei 9. (Miskolc, 2014)
Mezőkövesd-Mocsolyás - A brief overview of the Szatmár group (ALBK 1) in the light of the excavations and the assessment of the site and its finds
Mezőkövesd-Mocsolyás 87 populated the entire south-western settlement territory of the group or phase (see the distribution map). As a result of this rapid diffusion, the macro-analysis did not reveal major differences between the find assemblages from the outermost sites at Füzesabony-Gubakút and Mezőkövesd-Mocsolyás in the south and from Novajidrány and Kassa/Kosice in the north; moreover, a striking similarity could be seen between the more unusual finds. Likewise, many shared traits can be seen in pottery production. The ALBK finds from late Körös contexts found at Ocsöd-Kiritó were first published by Pál Raczky. However, the ALBK pottery fragments from the site published to date represent very general types used over a long time, which can be found in all ALBK phases with the exception of the latest one and they cannot therefore be assigned to the Szatmár group with certainty. Still, their resemblance to the ceramic fragments recalling Szatmár types published by János Makkay from Szarvas and Endrőd can nonetheless be quoted in support of their assumed contemporaneity. Absolute chronology In addition to the typological analysis of the pottery and other finds, radiocarbon dates too provide important anchors for determining the chronological position of the settlement at Mezőkövesd-Mocsolyás. The number of dates is still quite low and their scatter is rather wide. During the typological analysis of the finds, we also identified a handful of late ALBK ceramic fragments reflecting a sporadic occupation during that period, even though the overwhelming majority of the finds represent the early ALBK period, i.e. the Szatmár group. The samples were taken from features that appeared to have been undisturbed; however, the occupation of the site during later periods meant that the samples had somehow been “contaminated” and thus only twelve of the twenty-five samples submitted for radiocarbon dating can be confidently assigned to the Szatmár group. The dates were grouped according to feature types. The dates yielded by the samples taken from the burnt house debris and from the features underneath it are described first. The absolute dates can be found in Table A in the Hungarian text. Sample 1 (charcoal) comes from Feature 294, a post-hole of House 3; Samples 2-3 from Feature 105/b in Trench D, i.e. from House 2, from animal bones found among the burnt daub fragments; Sample 4 from Feature 166, from House 3 in Trench E, from animal bones found under the burnt daub fragments; Sample 5 from Trench 31, also from House 3, from animal bones found under the burnt daub fragments; Samples 6-8, 14 (animal bones) from Feature 310 associated with a house that had decayed, but not burnt down; Samples 9-12 (animal bones) from Feature 226 associated with the same building; Sample 13 from Feature 130, a probably undisturbed Neolithic feature, from an animal bone. The absolute dates that were probably influenced by the site’s later occupation are also presented. These are noteworthy because with the exception of Sample 13, they were collected from features that appeared to be undisturbed during the excavation and at the time the samples were collected. The dates from the probably disturbed features are presented in Table B in the Hungarian text. These dates can only be interpreted with some difficulty. While the dates for Samples 5-6 conform to the Late Copper Age, very few pottery fragments of the Baden culture representing this period were found at the site. Samples 7-8 fit perfectly into the Middle Copper Age, but no finds whatsoever were found from this period. Samples 9-11 gave dates of the late phase of the Middle Neolithic and the onset of the Late Neolithic. The late ALBK pottery fragments could be linked to these dates, insofar as they are accurate - however, this seems unlikely owing to the later disturbances. This is the reason that the apparently reliable and accurate dates must also be treated with caution, especially in view of the fact that a part of these dates show a wide scatter. The dates ending with 5034 or even 4999 BC are especially dubious. It seems to us that some of the ± measurements are unacceptable for the Szatmár group. If the absolute dates for the latest period of the 6th millennium are accepted (5553-5477 cal BC, 5582-5457 cal BC, 1 a, 5234-5034 cal BC), this would imply that the Mocsolyás settlement had been occupied for over five hundred years without any changes in the material culture, unless we assume that the sporadic late ALBK occupation had contributed to the late dates (e.g. Samples 6 and 10 in Table A). These dates cause quite some uncertainty. Various possibilities must be considered in the case of three different key sites of the Szatmár group. The first of these is Füzesabony-Gubakút, excavated by László Domboróczki, who published his findings in several studies. From his analysis of the settlement’s layout and occupation, and the critical statistical assessment of the radiocarbon dates, László Domboróczki concluded that the Füzesabony-Gubakút settlement had not been occupied for as long as the calibrated BC dates for the sixteen uncovered houses suggested. He placed the features of the first four phases as defined by him between 5620 and 5210 BC in terms of absolute dates; at the same time, he noted that an occupation between 5570 and 5260 cal BC would also be feasible based on the median values. By correlating the occupation data with the radiocarbon dates, he estimated that the settlement had been occupied for some 320 years. The other important site is Tiszaszőlős-Domaháza- puszta on the left Tisza bank, where László Domboróczki observed the stratigraphic relation between the settlement
