Szőllősy Csilla - Pokrovenszki Krisztián (szerk.): Alba Regia. Annales Musei Stephani Regis - Szent István Király Múzeum közleményei. C. sorozat 45. (Székesfehérvár, 2017)
Tanulmányok/közlemények - Régészet - Keszi Tamás: A nagyrévi kultúra szimbolikus ábrázolásokkal díszített urnái Kiapostag - Dunai-dűlő lelőhelyről. Alternatív javaslat a Budapest - Pannonhalmi úti edény ábrázolásának értelmezésére
Tamás Kesÿ: Cinerary urns from the Nagyrév Culture ornamented with symbolic representations found at the Kisapostag — Dunai-dűlő site In interpreting this scene, we can try to answer four questions: 1) What is the central motif? 2) Who are the two figures? 3) What are they doing? 4) Why are they doing it? There is no clear and definitive answer to either of these questions.26 1) The interpretation by Rózsa Schreiber has already been discussed earlier. The question is whether the motif between the two figures represents the same thing in each case. Interpreting the intermediate group of markings on the Kisapostag vessel as the footings of a house is problematic, rather they can be associated with the motifs of the Tököl urn27 (Fig. 5, No. 5) or those of the Dévaványa28 and Tószeg29 vessels. As to the figure named as motif No. 28, Rózsa Schreiber believes that its role as a symbol has been simplified to such an extent that it can only be regarded as an additional decoration or a separator element.30 This is arguable in the light of the Kisapostag vessel: this motif, at least in certain cases, could have had a specific meaning, which, however, cannot always be determined due to the schematic representation. Two conclusions can be drawn: a) the object in-between the two human figures is not necessarily the same; b) assuming that the motif in the middle represents the same object on each vessel, it is most likely to be some sort of woven fabric31 whose pattern varies on each representation. 2) Rózsa Schreiber is probably right in stating that they are anthropomorphic creatures. There are no indicators that the figures on the artefacts from Nagyrév and Százhalombatta are supernatural creatures. In the case of the Kisapostag urn, the beak-like projection might be interpreted as the head of a bird-like creature. In this case, they are either halfman half-bird creatures or people wearing masks.32 A plastic ornament found in a Nagyrév Culture-related context, at the Dunaújváros — Rácdomb site, during excavations led by Jolán В. Horváth, is perhaps an example of the beak-like representation of the human head — at least one of the possible complementation of this fragment allows for this possibility (Fig. 6, No. 1J.33 As they consistently occur in pairs, the possibility of the appearance of the twin theme arises.34 Twins have played an important role in the genesis myths of several peoples — their function is usually to explain the common origin of two groups of people that are closely related culturally. In this regard, it is interesting that very similar representations are known from the two most important settlement areas of the Nagyrév Culture, namely the areas along the Danube River and the Tisza River. This suggests that the two areas were connected not only by the similar pottery styles, settlement and burial habits, but also by other cultural features, including beliefs. 3-4) Rózsa Schreiber differentiates the representations of the vessels found at Nagyrév from the group that captures a story or perhaps a ritual scene.35 It cannot be excluded that the Nagyrév, Százhalombatta and Kisapostag scenes also tell an event or action, regardless of whether it is an everyday event, an act occurring in the mythical past or a ritual reenactment of the same. It is not difficult to find parallels for the main motifs of consistent representation (two people, hand placed on a building or on an unidentifiable object). a) Based on the location of the figures and the central fabric-like element, it can be associated with weaving scenes.36 26 The general problems and pitfalls of this kind of interpretations are discussed in BRADLEY 2009, 3—47, where he brings several archaeological and cultural anthropological examples. 27 SCHREIBER 1984a, Fig. 8, No. 5. 28 SCHREIBER 1984a, Fig. 8, No. la-b 29 SCHREIBER 1984a, Fig. 5, No. 6a-b 30 SCHREIBER 1984a, 25. 31 For a similar opinion based on earlier finds, see: HORVÁTH - MARTON 1998, 250; 2002, 207. 32 For a summary of the topic and literature of masks covering several historic eras, see: HORVÁTH 2014. No masks, or depictions of the same, have been found so far from the Early Bronze Age in the Carpathian Basin. A hypothetical skull mask found in one of the waste pits of the Iváncsa - Lapos setdement containing shards of potteryware typical of this culture may indicate the use of mask in the Nagyrév Culture: http://intercisamuzeum.hu/honapmutargya/2017-februar-honap-mutargya-bronzkori-koponyamaszk-ivancsarol (date access: 23 February 2017). Bird and human body parts are frequendy mixed on Early- and Middle Bronze Age ceramics. On the presumed religious background of this motif, see: GUBA - SZEVERENYI 2007; REICH 2005. The possibility has arisen that in this case it is a person wearing bird mask: REICH 2005,234. 33 The more common VW-shaped complementation is less likely based on the existing ribs and the broken surface. Nothing can be claimed with certainty; the vessel is unfortunately broken in the wrong place. Here, I would like to thank Jolán В. Horváth for granting the right of disclosure. For a report on the rescue of finds, see: B. HORVÁTH 1993. For a more detailed description of the site and of some finds discovered there, see: NYÍRI 2011. 34 KRISTIANSEN - LARSSON 2005, 258-319; KRISTIANSEN 2011. A similar scene occurs in a house-shaped Italian urn from the Iron Age, although there the hands of human figures do not come into contact with the central geometric motif (FORSYTHE 2005, Fig 2). On the other side of the urn, the two (same?) figures are seen in a different arrangement. Perhaps these are the representations of different scenes from a series of events. 35 SCHREIBER 1984a, 18, 20. 36 HORVÁTH - MARTON 1998,250; 2002, 207. 16
