Alba Regia. Annales Musei Stephani Regis. – Alba Regia. Az István Király Múzeum Évkönyve. 8.-9. 1967-1968 – Szent István Király Múzeum közleményei: C sorozat (1968)

Tanulmányok – Abhandlungen - Bándi Gábor: Remarks on the History of Research in the „Vueedol Problem”. – Megjegyzések a Vueedoli-kérdés kutatástörténetéhez. VIII–IX, 1967–68. p. 23–33.

e v i с they belong to the phase Vucedol A, in which the author thinks to prove the Baden

—Kostolac influence and some coevity of both cultures sufficiently.

111 Dealing with the origin and chronology of the Lasinja— Zók horizon, we have to return to Hungarian research again, although e.g. I. Bona could not mention this idea yet, and it was on the basis of the Vucedol tells that he established a connection between our material and the areas adjoining from the South.

112 Nevertheless, it was I. Bona who has collected the most important proofs for the southern origin of this supposed new horizon, distiuguished from the Vucedol one, as he dealt with the West Hungarian, so-called Somogy vár group he endeavoured to define.

113 Surveying the entire material of the Early Bronze Age in this area, i Bona found such grave-goods and stray pottery finds which were unfamiliar both to the Baden

—Pécel and the, unfortunately erroneously connected, Vucedol (Zók) complexes, betraying a far southern origin.

114 The uniting of these stray finds into a group has been made possible by the recognition of the parallels in the Drina and Morava regions, objects found also in tumuli with the contracted skeleton rite.

115 Thus in view of the results of N. G a r a S a n i n, scientific literature has been enriched by the ideas of the Serbian and the Western Hungarian groups, called Belotic

—Bela Crkva and Somogy vár A

—

В groups, at the same time.

116 The material comprised under the term Somogy vár A

—

в (one- and double-handled jars, high cylindrical goblets etc.) may be connected with southern parallels at any rate.

117 Closely linked to the Anatolian changes at about 1900 B.C., the line of descent may be very clearly followed in I. Bona'

s paper: the ruin of Troy V, the break in the Troyan culture on its East Thracian village settlements (Junatice, Karanovo), the progress in two directions, along the routes Axios

—Vardar

—Morava and South-Estern Bulgaria

—Marica

—Danube. This historical outline enables us to see clearly the migration of peoples which has brought the Somogyvár A

—

В groups by the Morava route, the reltaed folk of the Glina III

— Schneckenberg cultures by the Marica

—Drina route to the Carpathian Basin, parallel to the period Middle Helladic I, at the beginning of the Early Bronze Age of South-East Europe.

118 Since I. Bona regarded this historical process separately from the material of the Vucedol

—Zók culture, as he put it, not mentioning the possible connection with the Lasinja group altogether, consequently he dated the independent evolution of the Vucedol culture in the Danube—Drave region implicitly before this process.

119 It follows that he had to date the group Somogy vár A between Baden and Vucedol

—Zók, m Ibid. 55. 112 I. BONA: AUSB 5 -; ID.: Diss. Arch. 2 (1960) 51. из I. BONA: Alba Regia 4/5 (1963/64) 39. 1" Ibid. 47-49. "S M. GARASANIN: op. cit. 90. "б See notes 113-115. i" I. BONA: Alba Regia 4/5 (1963/64) 54-55. - The South Balkanic, Thracian and Anatolian parallels of all types of objects are collected in the material of notes 82-170.; - С W. BLEGEN: Troy 1/2 (Princeton 1950) PI. 383 and 385, 391, 393. - Troy II/2, Fig. 43 type A 42.; S. LLOYD -J. MELLHART: ASt 6 (1956) 101-, Fig. 2.; V. MIKOV: IAI 13 (1939) 195 -.; P. DETEV: IAI 17 (1950) Fig. 113 A. us I. BONA: Alba Regia 4/5 (1963/64) 57. «s Ibid. 61. in spite of the lack of but a single stratigraphical datum underlying this chronology.

190 Analyzing the sites and the material of the Lasinja

— Zók horizon, separated by us, one may observe, however, interesting parallels and identities which give rise to serious doubts as.to the self-standing and very uncertain Western Hungarian chronology of the Somogy vár group. 1. The revision of the "Somogyvár A group", i.e. of the sites in Western Hungary, mapped by Bona, has resulted in the following strange picture: 17 of the sites, adduced to prove the existence of a selfstanding group, are just scattered ware found under unknown circumstances,

121 1 site (Gerjen

—Váradpuszta) does not belong to the area of the group's extension,

122 whereas at two sites (Neusiedl am See

123 and Gönyű

124

) there was a single tumulus with the rite of contracted burial in all probability. The 15 sites, remaining of the 37, may be identified with the settlements of the Zók horizon of West Hungary; on the basis of stray pottery finds, I. Bona selected the pieces (several times from closed units) he regarded as Somogy vár ones.

125 2. On the basis of the above analysis of sites the independent existence of the Western Hungarian "Somogyvár group" seems to be wholly unjustified, since the selected pottery types are identical with the characteristic objects of the Early Bronze Age Lasinja

—Zók horizon, distinguishing this one e.g. from the Makó or the Nyírség groups. As I. Bona has selected the "Somogyvár group" from stray finds and the two graves, and he was unable to find the chosen types of pottery alone in settlements, except in the company of material which he termed Vucedol

—Zók, he was bound to admit that the settlements of the group were unknown as far.

126 Shall we suppose that the West Hungarian group, called Somogy vár A by I. В ó n a, may be amalgamated into the Lasinja

—Zók horizon, then we have to proceed towards the South-East and investigate the situation and the connections of the Belotic

—Bela Crkva group according to M. G a r a § a n i n, or Somogy vár В in the terminology of I. Bona. Thee onnection of the tumuli with the rite of skeleton burial and the closest relationship of the pottery yielded by them with the West Hungarian finds is beyond any doubt.

127 As regards the difference between the mentioned two authors we join I. Bona in stating that this grouh, linked to Western Hungary, does not comprise the Belotic

—Bela Crkva tumuli chronologically, only the sites Priboj, Negrisori

—Markovica, Zarub, Klinci, Zabari and 120 49-50. 1

21 Ibid. 39—45. — Somogyvár, Győr — Szabadhegy, Esztergom —Szentkirály fields, the surroundings of Esztergom and Tóváros, Környe, Győrszemere, Rajka, Illmitz, Ajka, Sármellék, Fenékpuszta, Sághegy, Szekszárd, Pécsvárad, Pécs, Szentmihályfa. — Ibid. 42. The site mentioned as Somlyóvásárhely is wrong, the objects in Fig. 1 nos 8—9 are from Csabrendek. K. DARNAY: AK 22 (1899) 46. 122 I. BONA: Alba Regia 4/5 (1963/64) 43. - The site belongs rather to the area of the Makó group. 123 R. PITTIONI: op. cit. 182-184, Figs 120-121.; I. BONA: Alba Regia 4/5 (1963/64) 41, Pl. XVII nos 14-15. 124 Ibid. 40. i

25 Ibid. 39. — Koroncó—Bábota, Alsódörgicse, Pókaszepetk, Kemendollár, Kéthely, Lengyel, Szedres — Genes farm, Simongát, Kökény — Kökény farm, Erzsébet, Szentlőrinc, Mágocs, Pécs — Makárhegy, Zók — Várhegytető, Nagyárpád—Dióstető. 126 Ibid. 47. 127 Ibid. 44, Pl. XVII nos 16-17. - M. GARASANIN: op. cit. 90. 29