Paluch Tibor: Egy középső neolitikus lelőhely a kultúrák határvidékén. A Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve: Monographia Archeologica 2. (Szeged, 2011)

Maroslele-Pana: A Middle Neolithic Site at the Frontier of Cultures

PALUCH Tibor • MAROSLELE-PANA: EG Y KÖZÉPSŐ NEOLITIKUS LELŐHEL Y A KULTÚRÁK HA TÁR VIDÉKÉN 71 proto-Vinca, phase can be clearly distinguished within this quite long period of history. A number of attempts have been made to clarify the chronology of finds between the early and late periods, especially based on analytical examinations of the pottery decoration (GOLDMAN 1991; TROGMAYER 1964; TROGMAYER 1968). However, in spite of these attempts a fully accepted comprehensive chronology of the Early Neolithic in the whole Carpathian Basin is still lacking. From the point of view of the proto-Vinca problem, the inner chronology of the Körös culture is of outmost importance as at the end of the Early Neolithic a find assemblage appears that is different from the usual Körös culture remains but shows similarities with the early Vinca culture (RACZKY 1988, 28). This assemblage is dominated by dark burnished wares, black-topped pottery, biconic vessels with articulated rims, relatively high-stemmed bowls with angular shoulders and articulated, slightly outcurving rims, as well as Schlickwurf-type barbotine and burnished decoration. Several theories have been built on the origin and development of the Vinca culture; nevertheless, the debate has not yet been settled. The existing arguments cover a huge spectrum from a theory of a pure southern Anatolian-Aegean migration (LAZAROVICI-LAZAROVICI 2003, 378; LESSON 2007, 31) to the concept of a local development based on economic, social or environmental factors; other scholars combine these two main ideas (CHAPMAN 1981, 2^1; MAKKAY 1990, 113; KALICZ 1994, 70). If we accept the theory of an independent inner development, then a transitional stage must have existed that connected the Körös-Starcevo culture with the other cultures of the Middle Neolithic. During the analysis of the finds from the 1963 Maroslele excavation the question was raised about a transitional stage in the latest phase of the Körös culture to the Middle Neolithic in the southern part of the Great Plain. Another question was whether the emerging Vinca culture was genetically affiliated to the Körös culture. No potsherds were recovered from pit 4 which could have been reckoned to belong to the Vinca A period. The ceramic assemblage shows the characteristics of the Körös culture. In pit 3, however, biconical pottery types indicative of Vinca culture were present. The proto-Vinca layer was first identified by Dragoslav Srejovic (SREJOVIC 1963) on purely theoretical grounds; he used the term to describe an archaeological assemblage found in superposition to the Starcevo material on the riverbank of the Lower Danube in former Yugoslavia. At the archaeological sites of Gornja Tuzla, Vinca, Potporanj, Verbicioara, and Celopec, finds of Vinca A character were discovered. Taking the Pana material as a starting point, in 1969 János Makkay used the term "proto-Vinca -type finds" to designate an assemblage of Vinca culture mixed with late Starcevo material, and defined the proto-Vinca period as a late phase of the Körös-Starcevo cultural complex, in which early Vinca-type artefacts appear but do not prevail exclusively. He interpreted the proto-Vinca finds as the latest types of artefacts belonging to the Körös-Starcevo-Cri§ cultural complex, and at the same time as the pottery type signifying the emergence of Vinca pottery (MAKKAY 1969, 25; MAKKAY 1982, 26-28). The key concept of this theory is the existence of similar inner developments in the Körös culture in the Tisza region and in the neighbouring Starcevo culture, which then culminated in the emergence of the Vinca culture (RACZKY 1992, 148; MAKKAY 1996, 44). The inner development theory of a proto-Vinca culture was summarized by János Makkay in 1990 (MAKKAY 1990). He distinguished two phases within this late Körösperiod development. While the earlier phase, proto-Vinca 1, is signified by the scattered appearance of Vinca potsherds in Körös assemblages, in the proto-Vinca 2 phase Early Neolithic and Vinca elements are found in similar proportions. Pit 4 of Ottó Trogmayer's 1963 excavation was then classified as proto-Vinca 1, while pit 3 was described as belonging to the later phase. This theory of inner development was severely criticised from the start. The main counterargument is based on the existence of other, similar, assemblages, equally alien to the Körös culture, which appeared not only in the area of the Vinca culture but in a much wider region in Southeast and Central Europe (KALICZ 1994, 71). Find types classified as proto-Vinca did not surface only within the framework of the Vinca culture, but in a much wider region; they were recorded in Southeast Europe in the Middle Neolithic of the Balkans and in the Late Neolithic of the Aegean region, that is, from the Ciumesti-Piscolt-Vinca A-Dude§ti I-Karanovo III- Zlatarski-Danilo I-Dimini (Tsangli)-Protokakanj (Kakanj) horizon onwards (LAZAROVICI 1977, 38; RACZKY 1983, 188; RACZKY 1988, 27; HORVÁTH 2006a, 309). From the mid-1980s it has been generally accepted that these technological innovations, although called by various names (Vinca AI, Spiraloid B, Szatmár II, Proto-Vinca), came into existence relatively simultaneously in the Balkans (RACZKY 1983, 188; BÁNFFY 2004, 246). Therefore, identifying the latest Körös assemblages as proto-Vinca would be an anachronism, since these are contemporaneous with Vinca A finds. Vessel shapes and ornament types similar to those of the Vinca culture do not occur in these assemblages as a result of the Vinca culture emerging from this late phase of the Körös culture, but rather the other way round: Vinca culture already existed and these finds exhibit its influence on Körös culture (RACZKY 1988, 28; SZÉNÁSZKY 1988, 15). Another focus of the critical remarks on the inner development theory was the geographical distribution of the archaeological sites. The 15 sites listed in the 1990 work are all located north of the Maros river, an area where Vinca culture never became prevalent and which does not fall within its borders (RACZKY 1983, 188; KALICZ 1994, 71). The initial center of Vinca culture and its precise localization within the territory of the late Körös and late Starcevo people is a different issue; it is not certain that the site after which the culture itself was named is identical with the original core area (TROGMAYER 1983, 56). The Vinca culture probably emerged somewhere in northern Sumadija, in present-day Serbia (Starcevo-Grad, Bjelo Brdo). Proto-Vinca cultural elements were transmitted from this region through a stimulus diffusion core-periphery pattern. On this basis, the proto-Vinca layer in the southern part of the Great Plain can be identified as a result of multiple cultural transmissions from an emanation center rather than as an individual evolution (CHAPMAN 1981, 39). To sum up, according to the currently accepted approach, proto-Vinca sites exhibit influences of the early Vinca culture, which had already developed. Thus, the term proto-Vinca denotes a chronological and not a genetic connection. Proto-Vinca 1 and 2 sites in Hungary are contemporaneous with the Vinca Al period. As we have seen, the exact details of the origins and development of Vinca culture are as yet unknown and theories about the proto-Vinca problem are still under debate. According to John Chapman, it is impossible to prove whether the incised and dotted decoration, the fluted pottery, the black and grey polished pottery and the biconic profile are predecesors or simple copies of the earliest Vinca culture artefacts (GOLDMAN 1991,40). The term proto-Vinca can only be used in the territory of the Vinca culture. As the material of the latest phase of the Körös culture is contemporaneous with the Vinca A period, there is no reason to apply another term. It is clear, nevertheless, that there must have been a real proto-Vinc development