Alba Regia. Annales Musei Stephani Regis. – Alba Regia. Az István Király Múzeum Évkönyve. 4.-5. 1963-1964 – Szent István Király Múzeum közleményei: C sorozat (1965)
Tanulmányok – Abhandlungen - Bándi Gábor: Data to the Early and Middle Bronze Age of Northern Transdanubia and Southern Slovakia. (Some Problems of the Tokod Group). IV–V, 1963–64. p. 65–71. t. 18–20.
Studying the history of Early Bronze Age in Slovakia, A. Tocik adopted the view of P. Caplovic on the basis of the Ógyalla (Hurbanovo) cemetery. Nay he devoted a seperate paper to this type at the Libnice Congress in 1958. 12 In his judgment the Hurbanovo group was formed in Southern Slovakia from a local basis (the Nyitra group) under a strong Transdanubian influence, representing the Aunjetitz and Kisapostag cultures in equal shares. Chronologically he classifies the group in the period Reinecke A2, supposing its coevity with the Moravian-Austrian Aunjetitz group. 13 The Hurbanovo problem was dealt with by M. Dusek on the basis of the most recent Slovakian finds. He reports on the cemetery of 50 graves uncovered in the village Naszvad Nesvady (Ógyalla district). 14 Every grave belongs to the rite of contracted burial. The pottery shows mainly Slovakian Aunjetitz features, the incrusted "Hurbanovo small jug" is, however, an equally familiar grave-furniture. 15 In the same paper the author publishes a part of the finds of the refuse pit 1956/IV, uncovered below the Patince cemetery of incrusted pottery; 16 he regards them as a mixture of Kisapostag and Hatvan material. A thorough investigation of this material is arousing one's suspicion as to the "Hurbanovo theory" described above. It is hard to understand, how one factor of the culture of the basic Hurbanovo area could have been mixed up with the material of a third culture in one and the same pit of a settlement of this territory. The partly Hatvan character of the finds makes the situation even worse. Having presented the problem, let us hear M. Dusek's opinion on the group. As to the origin of the culture he adopts the view of P. Caplovic and A. Tocik. He suggests that the different burial rites of both factors might have existed in their original areas of extension. 17 This suggestion arouses additional doubts as to the explanation of the origin of the Hurbanovo group in the outlined manner. It is hard to believe that two populations of widely divergent burial rites, intermingled in a proportion of one to one, should discard the burial rite of one of the components in the process of forming a new culture, in the given 12 A. TOCIK : Referäty (П) о pracovnich vnysledkach eeskoslovenskych archeologov za rok 1955. Libnice 1956, 24-46. 13 Ibid. p. 46. Chronological table. 14 M. DUSEK: Nővé nalezy zdoby bronzovej na juhozapadnon Slovensku. AR 11 (1959) 448-459, 504-508. 15 Ibid. 504, Plate 198, 1 — grave 15, 2 — grave 39. 18 Ibid. 508, fig. 203. 17 M. DUSEK: The Bronze Age Cemeteries of Kecskéd and Monostor. (In Hungarian.) RégFüz. II/8 (1960)p. 4. case the custom of cremation as thoroughly as to leave no trace in the cemeteries Nesvady,. Hurbanovo) at all. M. Dusek then gives expression to the view that this group has taken part in forming the Magyarád culture and that of the incrusted ware. 18 In Transdanubia he identifies the othej component of the incrusted pottery with the Kiv apostag culture. 19 We are bound to dise&.;\d this view in its entirety. 1. The culture of the people of the incrusted vessels in Trandanübia was developped, if we investigate its material culture, as a continuation of the Early Bronze Age Vucedol-Zók culture. 20 2. The intermixture of the Kisapostag and the Nagyrév cultures resulted in the Vatya culture almost simultaneously with the development of incrusted ware. The process of intermingling may be followed in detail both in the archaeological material and the rites of the early cemeteries. 21 3. If the "Hurbanovo type" is a result of the Kisapostag and Aunjetitz cultures, while the culture of incrusted vessels is an outcome of Kisapostag and Hurbanovo, these statements are leading to contradictions, namely: a) The lack of significant Aunjetitz impact on the culture of incrusted ware cannot be explained. b) One and the same Kisapostag culture infiltrates Slovakia at first (a supposition lacking any evidence on either bank of the Danube) and becomes, mixed up with the Aunjetitz culture, the Hurbanovo type, then shortly afterwards it develops, alloyed with the former, a culture of cremation burial, betraying southern influence. c) How could one explain that the Kisapostag culture discards its original burial rite, leaving no trace whatever, in Slovakia, whereas it preserves the custom of cremation in the "jointly developed" culture of incrusted ware, in contrast to the Hurbanovo group, sticking to the rigid rule of contraction. The comprehensive study by I. Bona is an important step in the research history of our group. 22 On the basis of stray finds from 18 Ibid. p. 5. 19 Ibid. p. 5. This view started probably from an opinion, antiquated by now explained in the Kisapostag monograph by A. MOZSOLICS. 20 I. BONA: The History of the Early and Middle Bronze Ages in Hungary and the Carpathian Basin. (Theses.) RégDolg. 2 (1960) 60-61. — Id. in AUSBSH 3 (1961) 17-18. 21 I. BONA: The History ...54; AUSBSH 12-13. 22 1. BONA: The Bronze Age ... (Manuscript.) II 486-492; 66
