Agria 39. (Az Egri Múzeum Évkönyve - Annales Musei Agriensis, 2003)
Domboróczki László: Radiokarbon adatok Heves megye újkőkori régészeti lelőhelyeiről
belonging to the same vessel type in a number of different pits. With everything seemingly related to everything else, it appeared that the pits had all been open at the same time. If this had been the case, however, why did the С 14 data record age differences of many hundreds of years? This was a contradiction which remained unexplained for a long time. We discounted the possibility that certain pits had been re-dug over and over again over a period of many hundreds of years. If indeed this had been the case we would have been able to see the different layers of soil where the pits had been repeatedly filled in, something we did not notice to any great extent. In addition, the redigging would have resulted in the bones getting mixed up, causing more recent radiocarbon datings right across the board. This would also have put into question the reliability of the samples taken and the datings themselves, thus compromising all the data. Only now that the vessels have been reconstructed and all the data collected has it become apparent that relationships between the pit finds are few, amounting to only a few vessels (see figs. 5 and 6). If more houses had been standing and more pits been open at the same time, then perhaps more pieces would have been scattered. It is however by no means certain that things actually happened like this. Why would one have thrown vessels here and there at the same time? It wouldn't have been particularly sensible. So what does our data tell us? Are they showing us the same age or something else? Whilst the number of questions mounts, the contradictions continue to baffle. So it was that we had to reconsider how the pits were filled. How did it come about? What found its way into the pits and what didn't? What were the pits actually used for and how long were they in use? For a discipline in which pits provide a prime source of data it was ironic that the answers to such questions had been left unanswered, leaving a gaping hole in our understanding of the Neolithic period. 21 Looking at the case of Füzesabony-Gubakút in greater detail, why, if the pit finds are all the same age do they have so little in common? And why, if there are countless tiny fragments originating from many hundreds of vessels per pit have only ten to twenty pots been pieced together with any success? The reason for such a low success rate cannot be 21 J. Chapman addresses the very same issue in his article about fractality (CHAPMAN, John 2001. 153-154.). Referring to earlier case studies (in: HOFMAN, J.L.-ENLOE, J.G. 1992.) he reached the conclusion that it is by no means certain that apparently compatible earthenware fragments spread over several areas were in fact buried at the same time. I. Pavlu addresses this in greater detail in relation to the excavations conducted at Bylany (PAVLÛ, Ivan ET AL. 1986. 310-314.). He divides the lifecycle of the finds into 6 phases, of which three are related to the production phase and three divided up into the usage, reusage and refuse phases. During the process by which settlement refuse takes shape there is first a short, more active accumulation phase followed by a longer deposition phase in which natural erosion takes place. Examining the way pits were filled he mentioned that in the upper layers the finds become more frequent and more fragmentary, touching upon the possibilities of later disturbance and the mixing of materials, and stressing that the pits had a short lifespan despite the presence of materials showing evidence of a longer period of wear. We agree with most of I. Pavlû's conclusions. As will be seen later, we came to similar conclusions (quite independently) during the course of our analysis of the Gubakut finds. It is worth mentioning the work of A. Miller-Rosen who, during his work on tell-formations, also gave a detailed analysis of the archaeological sedimentation process (MILLER-ROSEN, Arlene 1986. 10-13.). 13
