Agria 39. (Az Egri Múzeum Évkönyve - Annales Musei Agriensis, 2003)
Domboróczki László: Radiokarbon adatok Heves megye újkőkori régészeti lelőhelyeiről
Körös Culture. 162 Although the Neolithisation of the local population, and the cultural transition must have happened gradually 163 this is not something one sees in the Szatmár Group. But as an indigenous population was proved to have been present, it is possible that the people in question were party to a cultural shift. 164 Based on the knowledge we currently have we think that the most likely time and place for such Neolithisation to have taken place would have been the ALP Tiszadob and Bükk Groups. Finding an answer is of course much more complicated than simply tipping. The cultural transformation, however, could have started with the Tiszadob Group and continued within the Bükk Culture. It could have been, not merely because the burial sites excavated revealed a people displaying robust anthropological features, 165 but because the people living there, especially the Bükk people, had a mountain lifestyle 166 and were 162 Still the stone implements do not show any convincing similarities. According to K. Biró, despite the richness of the types and the raw materials in ALPI, Mezolithic precedents have yet to be found (BÍRÓ Katalin 2002.129.). Raw material as an article of exchange could theoretically show that relationships indeed existed with the indigenous population (see footnote 119.: VERHARD, Leo B.M. 2000. 227.), but the Szatmár Group could quite easily have obtained the materials at their source. Although R. Kertész believed there could be a relationship between the earliest TLP finds from Aranyhegyi út in Budapest and the site in Jásztelek, he thought it didn't happen in the case of the ALP finds (KERTÉSZ Róbert 1996.26.). We know that there was an enormous amount of obsidian amongst the Szatmár Group finds and that this was found as a raw material in greater proportions than the limnoquartz. In the Körös Culture we do find raw materials, albeit in smaller quantities (BÁCSKAY Erzsébet-SIMÁN Katalin 1987.). However, there are Körös sites, like that at Méhtelek, where there are enormous quantities of obsidian (STARNINI, Elisabetta 1994.102.), which appears also in Tiszabezdéd (MAKKAY János 2001. 62. footnote 36.). Experts point to similarities in the Körös and Szatmár stone finds (STARNINI, Elisabetta 1994. 102., BÍRÓ Katalin 2002. 129.). Some researchers believe that the Körös Culture didn't move north of Kőtelek along the banks of the Tisza because there were Mezolithic peoples in their way defending their obsidian deposits (MAKKAY János 2001. 62.), while others attributed only the controlling of the obsidian resources and trade with them to the monopoly of the Mezolithic population (KERTÉSZ Róbert 1996. 26.). It would be wrong to suggest that those Mezolithic people who guaranteed the Körös Culture their supplies of obsidian didn't in fact use the material themselves, so it is for this reason that the Jászság Mezolithic sites cannot be mentioned in this regard as stopping the explansion of Körös Culture. One should however consider the Tisza region (Gömör) Mezolithic groups outlined by J. Bárta, where obsidian is the charasteristic raw material (BÁRTA, Juraj 1980. 136). Although it is indeed theoretically possible, however if Körös sites would have appeared on the banks of the Upper Tisza (there was a time when Tiszabezdéd was believed to be one such case: KALICZ Nándor-MAKKAY János 1977. 165., KALICZ Nándor-MAKKAY János 1976. 22., altough later this has been questioned: MAKKAY János 1996. 40. footnote 33.) the dominating the presence of Mezolithic peoples in the region should not be considered. 163 Primary and secondary relationships: VERHARD, Leo B.M. 2000. 41-42. For this see footnote 119. 164 We believe that local indigenous people living in the northern Alföld initially retreated. This is not without precedent. For Dutch and Spanish examples of Mezolithic groups in retreat and later cultural shifts see: VERHARD, Leo B.M. 2000. 229-230., CAS ABO, Josep Bernad ET AL. 61-65. 165 NEMESKÉRI János 1961., ZOFFMANN Zsuzsanna 2000. 106-107. 166 KERTÉSZ Róbert-SÜMEGI Pál 1999b. 82. 42
