Agria 39. (Az Egri Múzeum Évkönyve - Annales Musei Agriensis, 2003)

Domboróczki László: Radiokarbon adatok Heves megye újkőkori régészeti lelőhelyeiről

the pit up quickly, or possibly as part of some ordered deposit, the smaller, more widely scattered worn fragments had found their way into the pit by chance having been swept in loose from the ground. For as long as one accepts this explanation, the relationship between the ceramic fragments in pits 51. and 135. suggests that the pits were indeed early. These pits had the largest proportion of those ceramic fragments deemed oldest by virtue of having been loose on the earth's surface for the longest time and being present in almost every pit. In addition the fragments found in these pits seemed to be the most varied, larger and generally deeper than in the other pits. (We didn't however analyse the degree to which they were worn.) These conclusions are supported by the С

14 data. These give the pits the earliest datings, adding further weight to the view that the earlier fragments had first been spread liberally on the old walking surface before ending up in the pits at same point. We believe having understood this we have managed to harmonize the С

14 dates and the ceramic data, making it possible to reconsider the genesis of the settlement and its relative chronology.

31 Of course, if this rule applies to the two early pits mentioned above it should apply to the other pits as well. Unfortunately, for us however there is only one such pit, pit number 19. which, by applying the above, must be older than the other pits on the 2nd eastern settlement row. Whilst not providing any evidence to the contrary, the С

14 data generally fails to provide anything as conclusive as in the case of the two earliest pits. At the other pits, where we do not have the ceramic-connections at our disposal, we are dependent on the С

14 data alone, for the time being at the least. For the reasons given earlier we would like to base our analysis on the interval between the two sigma. Here, apart from writing in E (for early) and L (for late) onto figures \-A alongside the data, we also marked in the chronological clusters. This was justified, since in the case of some pits, for example pits 135. and 35., the gap between the time intervals was substantial. The existence of pits separated by 170 years led us to try and create two chronological groups. So it was that the pits of the E-cluster were given a date of pre-5300 ВС and the L-cluster dates of post-5270 ВС. To the latter belongs not only pit 35. but pit 21.(which is not marked with a letter on the diagram). The connections between the ceramic fragments certainly help to confirm the existence of the first (E)- cluster in the case of the two earliest pits. For the time being, however, we have no convincing explanation for the lack of ceramic data for pits 45. 311 have already referred to J.Chapman's article on fractility, in which the author suggests that most of the vessels used (even those used for cultic purposes) were broken deliberately. Amongst the reasons for this was the use of the site for new purposes or indeed its total abandonment. In his opinion, however, only some of the vessels found their way into the pits as structural deposits (deliberately buried material), the remaining (missing) vessels having possibly remained in use, finding their way to other sites by way of the "earthenware trade" (CHAPMAN, John 2001. 155-156.). Although we find the author's ideas concerning structural deposits very interesting, we don't ascribe to the view that large amounts of pottery were transported or that it was traded. Rather, the origins of the pottery should be looked for on site (one only has to think of its fragmentation, its spread, the quanties found in the humus level and the number of pieces that couldn't be fitted together during the restoration process). Nevertheless some of the earthenware might in fact have left the site, something which can be explained by relationships existing between contemporary Neolithic communities, where whole vessels and sets of vessels may have been transported (WHITTLE, Alasdair 1996. 62., 113-116., 355.). An analysis of the exchange of fragments as gifts would be particularly interesting in the context of relationships between Neolithic and Mezolithic populations (VERHART, Leo B.M. 2000. 27-28., first contact situations: 32-39., CHAPMAN, John 2001. 155.). 17