Nagy Emese Gyöngyvér - Dani János - Hajdú Zsigmond szerk.: MÓMOSZ II. (Debrecen, 2004)

Farkas-Pető Anna – Horváth Tünde – Kozák Miklós: Fejér megye középső bronzkori földvárának kőanyaga. Régészeti és petrográfiai feldolgozás. I. rész

ANNA FARKAS-PETŐ-TÜNDE HORVÁTH-MIKLÓS KOZÁK THE STONE MATERIAL IN MIDDLE BRONZE AGE EARTHWORKS IN FEJÉR COUNTY ARCHEOLOGICAL AND PETROGRAPHICAL ANALYSIS (PART I) A general characteristic of the Vatya earthworks dating back to the Middle Bronze Age in Fejér County is that they were constructed during the time period of the Vatya Culture. Furthermore, unlike in the case of tells established on loess ridges along the rivers Danube and Tisza, these earthworks do not seem to have forerunners traceable to the Early Bronze Age (with the possible exception of Igar, where in 1974 a few Nagyrév pits were unearthed. However, it was not clarified at the time how these objects fitted into the overall structure of the settlement, how expanded they were, and how they related to the later Vatya time period). Apart from this, although they represent the material finds of a unified and fully developed culture, these stronghold were established in various time periods of the given culture (Lovasberény in the early period, Kajászó, Sárbogárd and Aba during the second time period of the Vatya Culture, while the case of Pákozd remains uncertain). The fortified earthworks retain several layers of settlement, which is a clear evidence of their having been settled for a longer period of time. A further characteristic feature of these strongholds is that they were established at locations that could be easily defended due to geographical conditions (mostly, on the plateaus of loess ridges towering above an otherwise entirely plain area, at the top of the highest elevation) and that they could also be fortified in a natural way. As far as their structure is concerned, the earthworks are fairly different from one another. There are single-structure ones amongst them (Kajászó), while the majority of them would belong to the double-stmcture type, although multiple-structure instances also occur (Sárbogárd, Pákozd). The relationship of the different sections present in them is not uniform either. For example, in the case of Aba, the round-shaped bastion acting as Part I must have had only a defensive function, while we may suspect something similar in the case of one of the parts at Sárbogárd and also perhaps on the territory of Nagyvár in Pákozd (?). In the cases of the rest of the earthworks, the individual parts might have had only different functions (residential or mercantileeconomic). As regards their dimensions, Pákozd and Sárbogárd would be of the largest size. It is possible that Sárbogárd-Cifrabolondvár had as many as four parts. Even the relative chronological sequence of the establishment of the various parts might pose some problems. According to some data, it can very easily happen that one and the same stronghold could feature parts of differing ages and dissimilar population intensities. As far as stone implements coming from the earthworks are concerned, they display a homogenuous picture relating both to their functions and their raw material. The only differences could be the quantitative discrepancies, due to the varying size of the individual excavations, and the consequent qualitative anomalies, resulting in a broader and more varied spectrum in some of the cases. The grinding of corn at the settlements was executed with lower grinding stones of various grain size and the corresponding hand-held rotund grindstones, less frequently with mortars and beaters. In several cases, there are spots of paint discernible on the lower grinding stones. The majority of these is the natural limonite coloration present in the sandstone but the presence of a smaller portion in the voids of the stones would be due to artificial, human activities, such as paint pulverizing. Although we have also encountered (an even more significant) degree of paint pulverizing in Bölcske, too, there has not yet been any archeologically relevant trace among the finds that would have indicated what the painting material was actually used for. Thus, at the present time we are totally in the dark in this respect. Among the hand-held stones, we have found examples of what could be used with equal efficiency both in paint pulverizing and in whetting certain cutting implements. Consequently, their use must have been fairly varied and diverse, due to their expediency resulting from their shape and material. The lower grinding stones almost without exception were made of coarse sandstone of ferreous limonite impregnation and oligomict composition with flinty cementation, of fine grain conglomerates, or of their combinations. Corresponding to their functions, hand-held stones were generally made of adamant and hardy fluvial quartzit pebbles. Due to the excellence and precision of their craftsmanship and to their smal size, the stone maces found at Lovasberény and Pá-