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

P. Barna Judit: Becsehely-Homokos. Előzetes az M7 gyorsforgalmi út 71. sz. lelőhelyén feltárt neolitikus telep kutatásáról (1999-2000)

BECSEHELY - HOMOKOS. ELŐZETES AZ M7 GYORSFORGALMI ÚT 71. sz. LELŐHELYÉN FELTÁRT KUTATÁSRÓL JUDIT P. BARNA BECSEHELY-HOMOKOS PRELIMINARY REPORT ON THE EXPLORATION OF THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT AT SITE 71 OF M7 MOTORWAY (1999-2000) The track of the planned motorway skirts the site earlier known as Becsehely II. (hereinafter identified as Homokos) (Picture 1/1). The previous excavation had been carried out by ZMMI under the supervision of dr. László Horváth (Thúry György Museum, Nagykanizsa) with the assistance of dr. László András Horváth (Göcseji Museum, Zalaegerszeg) and Judit P. Barna (Balatoni Museum, Keszthely). The present report outlines the information collected on this settlement belonging to the Transdanubian Linear Pottery Culture. The part of the track that was to be explored intersected site for 200-250 meters in E, NE-S, SW direction along the valley of the brook that it followed for about 800 meters (Picture 1/2). The 16 000 m

2 surface explored is only a small portion of the estimated maximum expanse of the neolithic site (16—20 ha). The explored part provides us with a cross section of the settlement: the ditch of slightly curved shape, explored at a length of 42 meters at its eastern edge is the foundation ditch of the fence-like facility (Object 223), which used to encircle the settlement on the side closer to the brook. The closure of the western end of the village is less articulated, yet, the decreasing of the number of the settlement objects and two objects that appear to have been parts of ditches (Objects 228 and 229) clearly indicate its location. These are also narrow and shallow ditches, the arches of which are concentric. The findings date back to TLPC, ranging from its oldest to the youngest of periods. We have explored more than 200 neolithic objects, whose distribution in the majority of the area of the settlement is fairly dense. There are pole holes, garbage pits, clay pits, bunkers, fencing ditches, kilns, fireplaces, working pits, and even a pit for sacrifices amongst them. Based on analogies and their ground plan locations, the long and narrow pits can be identified as the foundation ditches of buildings (e.g.: Objects 159, 160, 162, 170, 175, etc.). The presence of the so-called long houses, characteristic of the LPC (Moddermann 1986) can also be taken for a fact, although only their actual empty locations could be excavated, and the houses themselves could not. Altogether, about 67 sites of houses can be identified in the settlement section. The objects identifiable as the longish pits along the longer sides of the houses (Langgrube) or as the foundation ditches clearly demonstrate sites of the houses and, by extension, the structure of the settlement. The almost total absence of pole holes renders further specification impossible, so we do not have any information on the exact size, the internal division, or the proportioning of the houses (Moddermann 1985, Meier-Arendt 1989). The almost precisely N-S position of the sites of houses follows the practice characteristic of the LPC (Pavúk 1994, 68), and it also signifies the EW linear division of the settlement (i.e., a line of houses of such a direction). The classification of the pits according to the individual phases of development of TLPC is supposed to be able to add more precision to rather sketchy outline that we happen to have at the present time. The presently available summary ground plan (as long as it does not differentiate between the individual neolithic pits based upon the time period of their origin) can be compared to an X-ray image, providing us with a somewhat distorted picture concerning the whole of the settlement structure. 1. Kilns and working pits: During the course of the excavation, we found two different variants of the single space kilns in an extraordinarily good condition. We could not gather any data concerning whether the two variants, i.e., the arched kiln (Picture 5/2-5) and the flat top kiln (Picture 5/1), were defined by their differing location (internal or external kilns). However, it can be assumed on the basis of examples in the literature (Petrasch 1986) that the different structures could be related to different functions. It also remains a question whe-