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

Domboróczki László: Radiokarbon adatok Heves megye újkőkori régészeti lelőhelyeiről

and security, what else was there?

39 The pits were probably used initially for the extraction of clay, as they were refilled with refuse and humus rather than clay. Also the analysis of the filling and the types of refuse found, suggest the pits were filled in shortly after they had been dug. Perhaps this happened shortly after the house had been occupied, as by that time the pits would have got in the way. To complete the picture, one should turn to those few cases where the pits barely, if at all, disturbed the clay layer.

40 Is it possible therefore that it was the ritual itself that provided the pit with its raison d'être] Although we cannot be sure, the well-known examples of symbolic burials suggest this hypothesis cannot be discounted. Thus, from the evidence which exists at the sites recently excavated we can suggest the existence of some kind of tradition based on the placing and positioning of the settlement objects as part of a regulated and repeated ritual in the same manner as in the case of graves.

41 Such is the current picture we currently have of the Gubakút site, certainly as regards questions relating to chronology and settlement structure. All being well once the pit finds have been processed and the С

14 measurements drawn up we will be able to refine the periodization of the site. According to the С

14 data available, and now that we have looked at FiizesabonyGubakút, it is clear there is much less to be said about the other three settlements, despite the fact that they more or less follow a similar chronological scheme and display the same form of settlement development, albeit over differing periods. It is interesting that the settlement uncovered at Szikszói-Berek also came into being at an early date, as seen in the 5556-5307 ВС dating for pit 303. This shows that for some part of its history it co-existed with the settlement at Gubakút. The date 5556-5307 ВС for pit 303. and the 5238^1894 ВС date given for pit 343. did however show some disjunction, making it most probable that the settlement objects excavated at the site are of differing ages, thus adding further strength to the picture we have built up of Gubakút. The С

14 data from Mezőszemere and Kompolt is currently insufficient to allow serious analysis. From what we know, these sites would appear to date from the classical to late ALP period. One cannot go any further without considering the other regions associated with Central European linear pottery. Our western neighbours previously had to contend with findless house plans and their related long pits when attempting to discover the date of settlement.

42 Here several interesting observations were made which had a positive effect on the way we approached the problem. At the larger sites it has long since been recognised that we are dealing with long periods of time, with settlements perhaps being inhabited for periods lasting several hundreds of years. Those larger sites researched in greater detail have dated the houses in generations, allowing the LP period to be dated in terms of house generations in some western territories. Looking at the Gubakút data one would expect similar results to be available in the region in the near future. 39 We could at least suggest something along these lines. 40 eg.: Mezökövesd-Mocsolyás (KALICZ Nándor-KOÓS Judit 1997b. 31.) 41 Füzesabony-Gubakút, Mezőszemere-Kismari-fenék, Füzesabony-Szikszói-Berek: DOMBORÓCZKI László 1997c., Luda-Varjú-dűlő: DOMBORÓCZKI László 2003. 42 In connection with the sites at the Aldenhovener Platte, Langweiler, one should mention the work of J. Liming (LÜNING, Jens 1991.) and P. Stehli (STEHLI, Petar 1982.), although the exemplary evaluations at Bylany (PAVLÚ, Ivan ET AL. 1986.) should also be mentioned. 20