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 73 SETTLEMENT STRUCTURE Ditch In the preliminary reports published in 2008 I interpreted feature 120 as a ditch (Fig. 33. 3-6, Fig. 38) bordering the Neolithic settlement on the east (PALUCH 2009; PALUCH 2010). The feature was oriented north-south on the ridge of one of the hills and extended through the whole excavation trench. Its depth exceeded 2 m, measured from the recent surface level, and 150-160 cm measured from the scraped surface. The feature had a V-shaped cross section, the walls were curved, the bottom was rounded. So far, the earliest ditches surrounding settlements have been dated to the second half of the Neolithic Era. Ottó Trogmayer excavated part of such a ditch at Tápé-Lebő in 1957 (TROGMAYER 1957, 57). Results from the large-scale excavations undertaken in the past few years have slightly modified this picture. Results testify to large ditches surrounding Neolithic settlements in the Tisza region as early as the ALP2 (Alföld Linear Pottery culture) or the classic period (RACZKY-ANDERS s. a.). An earlier date for the appearance of such ditches is also suggested by results from studies of the Vinca culture, a cultural complex contemporary with ALP and crucial in the Maroslele-Pana context. Fortification ditches dated to the Vinca A2/A3 period have been reported from Gornea and Liubcova (LAZAROVICI-LAZAROVICI 2003, 383). In all probability, the ditches discovered at Maroslele had a similar function. Post holes A relatively large number of post holes were discovered at the site, outlining parts of the former settlement. Most of them can be connected to a larger feature, but others were situated in a line. There is no data on the functions of the latter, and it is impossible to say whether they were parts of a larger building. The post holes were positioned systematically; only the post holes of building No. 104 are exceptions. The above-surface building In the western part of the excavation area traces of a structure supported by posts were discovered (Fig. 25, 36). Five post holes along both long sides of the building could be observed. The building was oriented northwest-southeast, probably due to the predominant wind direction. The size of the building, calculated on the basis of the post holes' positions, is 8 m x 5 m, which means a floor space of 40 nr. The post holes are shallow; they penetrate the subsoil only a few centimeters in depth, which indicates that the upper part of the structure must have been destroyed by the mechanical clearance. This feature, identified as an above-surface building, might have been the center of the excavated part of the settlement. Archaeological features outlining the economic area or farmyard where household activities might have taken place (pit houses, wells, garbage pits, storage pits, clay extraction pits) are all situated within a 60 m range of this building. Along with the above-surface building, the pit houses and other features must also be discussed. Until the mid-1990s pit houses were regarded as the most widespread building type of the Middle Neolithic (HORVÁTH 1989, 21). Since then the general view has changed, but excavations keep revealing similar buildings whose function and context is dubious (BAILEY 1999, 156-157). During the 2008 excavation at Maroslele two such features, presumably pit houses or semi-subterranean buildings of unknown function, were unearthed (Fig. 15. 1-2; Fig. 17. 1-2). The original way these large features were used is still unexplained. From one of these two a considerable amount of stone-working waste as well as a fragment in the shape of a human foot, presumably part of a small sculpture, were excavated, while in the other feature the presence of a hearth or oven indicates possible use as a workshop. Pits Of all archaeological features, pits of different sizes, shapes, and functions were discovered in the highest number, scattered around the site. Most of them were presumably storage pits that were later used for garbage disposal. In a number of cases they barely extended into the subsoil. Their bottoms were usually flat with a slight depression that might testify to their use as storage pits for crops. The interpretation of these as refuse pits is questionable in some cases as most of the finds were not discovered here but in the huge, amorphic features identified as clay extraction pits. Two of the pits used for material extraction and later trash disposal are of special interest due to the finds they contained; these are pits 73. OBNR/77. SNR (Fig. 21; Fig. 22. 1-2) and 85. OBNR/91. SNR (Fig. 22. 5-6; Fig. 23). I would not propose any sacral or ritual interpretation for these, nevertheless, more than 90% of the special or cultic objects found during the excavation were recovered from these pits. The interpretation of feature 85 is further complicated by the anatomically complete and unworked horn cores of an aurochs discovered at the bottom of the pit. This deliberately deposited aurochs trophy might indicate a cultic context, presumably connected to the wells; however, the recently introduced concept of a ritual garbage pit might also be relevant to pit 85. Wells The six wells discovered in the deepest part of the excavation area probably belonged to the building mentioned above. These features are special as they were made by the same method. The upper part narrows downwards; in the middle the walls are vertical, and in the lower part, just above the groundwater level, the well broadens and the walls become rounded. The depth of the wells, identical to the present groundwater level, was ca. 2 m measured from the subsoil and 3-4 m measured from the recent surface level. The wells were located 10 to 15 m from each other (Fig. 35). The largest of the settlement's wells (Fig. 30) was not located here in this "well area" but about 200 m distant. As the wells were dug into a loess layer, which means that there is no confining bed, their use as wells might be questioned. Several other ways of use are possible; nevertheless, the most probable explanation is that these features were used as rainwater cisterns. Dug wells played a pivotal role in the water supply. Settlements were always established beside rivers and the flood areas had an abundant fresh water supply in the spring and the fall due to flooding. The irregular watercourses and the fact that between the two flood periods the 50-100 cm-deep water body that accumulated in the flood area filled up with rotten organic matter made it necessary to secure drinking water supply by digging wells on the riverbanks. On the grounds of these facts it seems that traces of a short-term settlement used only once were found, dated to the Middle Neolithic. There was no superposition of the Neolithic pits, the deposit layer was, however, disturbed in later archaeological periods. Some of the Neolithic features were disturbed in the Copper Age. Most Neolithic features were situated in the deeper, lower areas and not on the hillside. This might be explained by a