Agria 39. (Az Egri Múzeum Évkönyve - Annales Musei Agriensis, 2003)
Domboróczki László: Radiokarbon adatok Heves megye újkőkori régészeti lelőhelyeiről
and 89., where more connections were expected than between the later ones. The lack of ceramic fragments linking the two sites may be explained simply by their position, situated as they were right at the edge of the 1 st western settlement row. It is also possible that despite being on the edge of the 2nd eastern settlement row the fragments found in pit 135. may also be found in the other pits. Moving onto the data analysis, the chronological situation in the U-type pits seems to be even more uncertain. They could have come into being at any time in the two hundred years between 5440 ВС and 5200 ВС. Although it seems most likely that some are early and some late, some belonging to the E-cluster and some to the L. The disjunction of the intervals seen in pits 135. and 35. leads one to believe that there is a case for putting them together in one group somewhere between the E and the L clusters. What should be noted, however, is that in the U-types the sigma 2 domain generally tends to towards the lower date, although from the point of view of probability fields this doesn't influence our argument significantly. For the time being there is nothing we can do with the unmarked datings, whilst our sigma 2 time limits remain too wide. To sum up, there is evidence to show there were three major house-building phases on the excavation site: clusters E/5600-5300 ВС/ - U/5440-5200 ВС/ - L/5270-5200 ВС/), rows W 1. and E2. being the oldest areas of settlement. Settlement rows W2. and E 1. (maps 3-4.), situated closer to the water, are most certainly later, the only question being whether they belong to the very latest settlement phase (L) or a transitionary phase (U). So it is that our initial mean readings are born out by our subsequent analysis. However, whereas we once thought it probable that there were two phases of settlement, now we believe there were probably three, and that they formed part of the same continual settlement process. The main difference, therefore, is the concept of continual development and the possibilities that brings with it. Continuity is an important consideration, and in the case of Gubakút it is by no means inconsequential whether one is looking at short term continuity, with occasional periods of settlement, or a long period of permanent settlement. The layout of the settlement, however, suggests that permanent settlement is more probable. The appearance of the site suggests ordered or even planned settlement, the dwellings having been built in equidistant rows. The finds within the rows themselves are also positioned an equal distance from each other and there is no superposition. As mentioned earlier, it is likely that such regularity was deliberate rather than being the result of chance. Some researchers have tried to account for the orientation of the houses by referring to the direction of the prevailing wind, arguing that the shorter sides of the houses pointed in the direction of the wind. 32 The houses themselves did of course play a role in the way a settlement was orientated, but it is by no means sure that sheer functionality was the only determining factor. It is noticable that in 32 There are of course counter-arguments as well: in Holland, P. Moddermann says that the prevailing S W wind would have hit the roofs side on (MODDERMANN, Pieter J.R. 1985. 73.). This indeed is our preferred argument. In our case there are signs that the prevailing wind was NE-SW. This is also shown in the form of the Polgár-Csőszhalom tell (RACZKY Pál ET AL. 1997. 35., fig. 21., DOMBORÓCZKI László 2000a. 94.). The wind hit the tell most consistantly from the NE, causing the deformation one can see. Of course the question arises as to when the prevailing winds blew: during the Neolithic period or later. Although this is a problem we cannot solve for the time being it is nevertheless interesting that the entrances to the trench system surrounding the tell point in a NE-SW as well as a NW-SE direction, showing perhaps there was indeed a relationship between wind direction and the direction buildings pointed. 18
