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 Kes^i: Cinerary urns from the Nagyrév Culture ornamented with symbolic representations found at the Kisapostag - Dunai-dűlő site The question of the relationship between the Middle East and the Carpathian Basin The “World-Systems Theory’ is a model that may provide an interpretative framework for understanding the relationship between the Early Bronze Age cultures of the Carpathian Basin and Middle Eastern cultures, providing an explanation for the appearance of certain cultural characteristics through diffusion.148 In the 3rd millennium BC, the Carpathian Basin belonged to the margin.149 We can expect that ideas, technologies and certain object types move from the core to the margin, although there is no ongoing current relationship between the two regions. The various phenomena may appear with a delay in time, and may be further developed independently.150 Some cultural features and objects reached Europe151 through the Anatolian trade network,152 and from there, entering the Circumpontic cultural zone (whose traces date back to the Neolithic), the path continued along the coastline of the Black Sea,153 reaching the Danube,154 the axis of long-distance relationships since as early as in prehistoric times.155 Artefacts may have got from one community to another through interconnected exchange networks, in the framework of ritualised gift exchanges.156 In addition to the theoretical foundations, over the past decades, more people have dealt with those specific relationships between various marginal areas of Europe and the Middle East in the 3rd millennium BC that are explorable through archaeology,157 and it is clear from these researches that Europe, and within that the Carpathian Basin, was not isolated from the Middle East. It seems that there was a connection between the Eastern Mediterranean and Central Europe in the period that is interesting from our point of view,158 i.e. between ca. 2300 and 1900 BC.159 This corresponds well to the calibrated C14 dating results published so far about the Nagyrév Culture,160 which date this culture to the second half or last third of the 3rd millennium BC. The occurrence of certain types of objects (Schleifennadeln, Ösenhalsringe) can be qualified as massive, which confirms the existence of relationships between Central and South-East Europe and the Eastern Mediterranean in the last third of the 3rd millennium and the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC.161 Other types of artefacts appear sporadically.162 Joseph Maran dates the unknown silver dagger kept in the Hungarian National Museum, whose exact findspot is unknown, to the 3rd millennium BC.163 The spearhead of Zihl164 can also be classified in this category.165 The limestone statuette found under an Iron Age tumulus in Weilmiinster- Dietenhausen plays a prominent role among artefacts from the 3rd millennium BC, which occur sporadically in Central Europe.166 In this case, there is evidence of a relationship — although, of course, not direct — between Central Europe 148 Research history summary: HARDING 2013. Regarding the historic era important from our point of view, particularly SHERRATT 1993; WARBURTON 2011; RAHMSTORF 2011. Any non-adaptive cultural feature, summarised by Robert C. Dunnell with the term ‘style’ (DUNNELL 1978), may spread by diffusion too. 149 SHERRATT 1993, Fig. 13. 150 SHERRATT 1993, 6-7, 43; HARDING 2007, 53. 151 HE YD 2013,17-27; HE YD - AYDINGÜN - GÜLDOGAN 2016. 152 SAHOGLU 2005; EFE 2007; FIDAN 2012, 180, Lev. 2. MASSA - PALMISANO 2018. 153 NIKOLOV 1998 ; VASSILEVA - MINKOV 2017. 154 THISSEN 1993; BAUER 2011. 155 SHERRATT 1993, 22-23. 156 ROWLANDS 1973; MARAN 2007,11-12. 157 GERLOFF 1993; BROODBANK 2000; MARAN 2007; GERLOFF 2010. 158 GERLOFF 1993, 59-60. 159 KRISTIANSEN - LARSSON 2005,118-120. 160 Baracs, Bölcske - Vörösgyír, Dunakeszi - Székesdűlő, Tószeg - Laposhalom: RACZKY - HERTELENDI - HORVÁTH 1992, items 43—44, 16, 22—24, 41—43; FORENBACHER 1993, 248; ENDRŐD1 — PÁSZTOR 2006, 16. In summary, as regards the chronology of the the Early Bronze Age, and within that, the Nagyrév Culture (2300/2200-2000/1900 BC), in the Carpathian Basin: P. FISCHL et al. 2015. Calibrated la data of animal bones found in graves of the Iváncsa - Lapos setdement containing potteryware made purely in the Nagyrév style: 2130-2020 (DeA-5599); 2120-2090, 2040-1970 (DeA-5601). 161 GERLOFF 1993,62-73, Fig. 2,3. For further information on the spread of Schleifennadeln in Mesopotamia, see: KORFMANN 1993, Fig. 21a. 162 Volker Heyd could have thought about this phenomenon when using the term ‘punctual [correctly: punctuated] transmission’: HEYD 2013,9. 163 MOZSOLICS 1967, 58—59, Table 45, 1; MARAN 2007, 11, Note 55. The early dating of the artefact is supported by the dating of Guillaume Gernez’s type P4: GERNEZ 2007a, 481, Illustrations 189. 164 REINECKE 1933. 165 GERLOFF 1993,73, The object types L 3.E and J by Gernez can be dated back to ca. 2300-2000 BC, and the end of the 3rd millennium - beginning of the 2nd millennium BC, respectively (GERNEZ 2007a, 324, Fig. 2.95,330-331, Fig. 2.96, Carte 46; GERNEZ 2007b, 334, Fig. 4). 166 HANSEN 2001. In the place cited, about the spread of weapons made of precious metals: HANSEN 2001, 50—52. 36
