Alba Regia. Annales Musei Stephani Regis. – Alba Regia. Az István Király Múzeum Évkönyve. 2.-3. 1961-1962 – Szent István Király Múzeum közleményei: C sorozat (1963)

Tanulmányok – Abhandlungen - Bóna István: The Cemeteries of the Nagyrév Culture. II–III, 1961–62. p. 11–23. t. I–XVIII.

THE CEMETERIES OF THE NAGYRÉV CULTURE The material of the Nagyrév culture has been familiar to research only by a few vases selected

1 from the finds of the Tószeg and Nagyrév settlements

2 up to our day Beside these settlements, situated in the Tisza region, the only Nagyrév complex along the Danube is represented by the urn graves of the Kisapostag cemetery, belonging to the Nagyrév type. Lacking the connexions between the different finds, these graves are regarded by one of the summarizing studies as characteristically "Kisapostag forms",

3 and treated by the author presenting the cemetery as the traces of "Tószeg A" influence.

4 Two recent, more extensive publications, dealing with the material discovered during the excavations on the Tószeg Laposhalom in 1948

5 and between 1876 and 1907 respectively,

6 are presenting settlement-finds as intended, a material in fact unsuitable for the purpose of even approximating the inner chronology of the culture. Publishing the urn graves at Tószeg—ökörhalom, the author of the present paper intended to clear up earlier misunderstandings as to the burial in the Nagyrév culture,

7 summing up our knowledge on this subject at the same time. These statements have been followed immediately and also supported by N. Kalicz's thorough publication on the authentically discovered Nagyrév cremation cemetery at Alsónémedi.

8 At the same time we have collected the finds of the Nagyrév culture (and those of the preceding earliest Bronze Age) preserved in the museums of Hungary. So a new valuation of the Nagyrév culture, essentially divergent from the earlier one, became possible 9 In our paper published in the first issue of this periodical, "The Nagyrév Urn Cemetery at Kulcs and the Kulcs Group of the Nagyrév Culture", we have begun to present the material of the named culture. In that paper we have outlined the problems anew and we endeavoured to arrange the Nagyrév cemeteries in a system. The following investigation is launched on an essentially indentical line, with the single remark that several reasons have induced us to alter the names applied to the diverse groups earlier. It must be emphasized that the present paper is but another step towards the knowledge of the Nagyrév culture. The publication and summarizing respectif P. PATAY, Frtihbronzezeitliche Kulturen in Ungarn. Diss. Pann. И

13 (1938) 30—38, pl. II—III. 2 F. TOMPA, 24 25 BRGK (1934 35) 65—73, íig. 4 and pl. 21—22. 3 P. PATAY, op. cit. pl. IV

—V. presents 11 vessels as illustrations of the Kisapostag group; 8 of them have Nagyrév, 1 early Vatya and 1 Magyarád character. 4 A. MOZSOLICS, Der frühbronzezeitliche Urnenfriedhof von Kisapostag. AH 26 '1942) 19—20. Mozsolics is surprised at the fact that a jug of "Tószeg A" type has been uncovered from urn grave 17 here, although "this pottery was known almost without exception from huimation graves SJ far". Unfortunately she omits to mention at least a s ngle such humation grave. 5 A. MOZSOLICS, Die Ausgrabungen in Tószeg im Jahre 1948. Acta Arch. Hung. 3 (1953) pi. XVIII—XXVI. 6 I. BONA, Die Ausgrabungen von L. Márton in Tószeg. Teil II. Acta Arch. Hung. 10 (1957) 87 seqq. 1—2 and fig. 17. ively of the copious material gained by authentic excavations of settlements (Tószeg 1908-1924, Nagyrév, Dunaújváros-Koszider 1951 and 1957), of numerous other important, smaller or larger settlements and finds and, last but not least, of the very numerous and varied tray finds, still remains to be done. Only having fulfilled the majority of these tasks, shall we be able to deal with the extension, the changes in the boundaries of the tribal-territory, and the internal history of the Nagyrév people. The archaeological material designed as "Nagyrév" by research, however, does not seem to be the earliest Bronze Age culture on the middle stretch of the Danube and the Tisza rivers. In its forim known at present it has developped in this site already. A minority of its antecedents must be looked for in the Late Copper Age Pécel culture, the majority, howerer, may be found in the conglomeration of essentially eastern and southern character, flooding the Middle Danube basin, nay extending further along the Mo>rva river, at the beginning of the Early Bronze Age. The developped Nagyrév culture embraces the elements of almost every type or, to put it exactly, it is related to them in the same degree as they are to each other. However, it is linked to the Proto

—Nagyrév and Somogyvár —Gönyü groups the most. This chaos is poined by lesser western elements too, the immigration of the Bell

—Beaker folk. It is not yet clear, how all these factors resulted in the Nagyrév culture. One fact seam

s to be certain already: the Nagyrév culture has no essential form, the Early Bronze Age 1. Phase antecedent of which could not be investigated in the Middle Danube basin. We shall allude to them here and then.

10 According to our present knowledge the cemeteries and vessels found in graves respectively of the Nagyrév culture may be assigned to one of the following four groups: 1. the Ökörhalom, 2 the Kőtörés, 3. the Szigetszentmiklós, and 4. the Kulcs type. Cemeteries of the ökörhalom type

n The majority of the characteristic graves of this group were discovered at Tószeg—ökörhalom, it the urn cemetery situated at a distance of about 1 km from the Laposhalom tell. The finds, are the following: 7 Ibid 133—140, figg. 28—30. 8 N. KALTCZ, Arch. Ért. 84 (1957) 125—132. The same naper is published later in Acta Arch. Hung. 9 (1958) 197 seqq. We quote the earlier paper he^e. 9 We have out'ined our views in Rég. Dolg. 2 (1960) 47 and Annales Univ. Budapest. Sect. wist. 3 (1960) resoective?y. 10 The material illustrating the origin of the culture can be just alluded to in this paper. One may justly wonder, why the author does not begin the detai'cd analysis of our Early Bronze Age at the beginning. Unfortunately the number of authentic finds decreases as we go backwards in time; most of our earliest finds are stray ones. Under such circumstances it seems to be more logical to proceed from the certain towards the less certain. As we shall see, the source value of the present material is also partial, and the number of nroblems unsolved by it is at the least equal to those which are solved, il In our earlier pap rs we have referred to it as "Szigetszentmiklós A" type. 41